 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / May 2007Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
I know this is old stuff, but I would like some input (hopefully informed) on current thinking, now that gas prices have skyrocketed and there is a real financial significance that just didn't exist "in the olden days". Here in British Columbia, Canada we are paying $1.17/litre in $Cdn or 1.17 x 3.785 (l. / U.S. gal) x .86/1=$3.80 U.S. / U.S. gallon.....and that's for regular. Let's look at about $4.10+ U.S. / U.S. gallon. The book for my car 2001 V70xc recommends a minimum octane (RON) of 91, and I see regulars at 87 and mid-range at 89. I listen to Radio Station KGO (San Francisco) at night and often hear their science Guru Bill Wattenberg (PhD etc. etc. knows all, et al) who says, "If it will run on regular, use regular. A modern sophisticated car engine may not run initially that well, but sensors will "re-tune" to the lower octane and will be fine.....no damage.....no power loss.....no effect on warranty. The theory, as I understand it is that "higher octane" doesn't mean more "power" in the gas, it means elements added to adjust combustion rate. In his opinion higher octanes are "generally speaking" a scam on automobile users perpetrated by the oil companies and encouraged by the auto manufacturers. What's the consensus? Gerry >I know this is old stuff, but I would like some input (hopefully informed) > on current thinking, now that gas prices have skyrocketed and there is a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Gerry Ah.... the Truth. There is no truth, there is just perceiption. There also is no consensus on this I am afraid. And since when is truth determined by consensus? ;) Anyway... MY EXPERIENCE is that the higher octane fuels will cause the engine to run more efficiently, somewhere around the same percentage as the price is higher. So... if the higher octane stuff is around 10% more expensive, then I get a milage that is around 10% better. This has been "More Or Less Accurate" (= True? ;) ) since the first time I did the calculations for my Saab 99. Since this car did not have any "intelligence" built in (you had to get in the car first yourself) it didnt adjust to the fuel by itself. So.... I got fed up with tuning to a different fuel and did the calculations. In the end I stuck with the higher octane fuel. If I was/had an oil company, I would make sure my fuel was priced so that i would sell the most, OR make my profits as high as possible. If my high octane fuel did not have enough benefits, then I would have to lower the price OR improve the performance of it. So..... I suspect this has been going on in the oil-markets for a while, and the prices will have leveled out related to the performance. That is my GUESS. That is not the truth. ;) BTW: The best way to save on fuel cost is... ... not drive. It is easy to drive 10% less. Try it. It is the truth. Ehm.... oops! ;) Good luck. Richard. >>I know this is old stuff, but I would like some input (hopefully informed) >> on current thinking, now that gas prices have skyrocketed and there is a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > There also is no consensus on this I am afraid. > And since when is truth determined by consensus? When it comes to 'science' of global warming! ;-) > ;) > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Good luck. > Richard. >> And since when is truth determined by consensus? > >When it comes to 'science' of global warming! >;-) Oh, I dunno... when 999/1000 scientists not employed by polluters (or their protectors) who have a financial stake in delaying and/or preventing action agree, I think it's a safe bet they know what they are talking about. >>> And since when is truth determined by consensus? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > preventing action agree, I think it's a safe bet they know what they > are talking about. Of course I agree that the chance of them being right is quite large. But still... there also was general consensus that the earth was flat until 1 fool sailed around it. ;-) Probably not the place to discuss this here... I AM still looking for investors in my Palm-Trees-In-Canada business BTW.. :P Anyone interested? :D Richard. >Of course I agree that the chance of them being right is quite large. >But still... there also was general consensus that the earth was flat until >1 fool sailed around it. ;-) >Probably not the place to discuss this here... I'll skip the modern political issue - but the dated one is that the *scientists* of the day were actually somewhat comfortable with the notion that the Earth was round. It was the religious leaders that adamantly refused to accept good science in place of religion... and mostly because it was in their own self interest to perpetuate a view not supported by science. Oh... wait... that *is* the modern political problem. :-) FWIW - Columbus might have been a follower, not a leader, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Octane is a measure of stable combustion. Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. > Octane is a measure of stable combustion. > Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to > increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. On racing tracks there's always a whiff of methanol. >> Octane is a measure of stable combustion. >> Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to >> increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. > > On racing tracks there's always a whiff of methanol. Oi! You leave the personal habits of the pit crew out of it!  SignatureThe DervMan www.dervman.com > >> Octane is a measure of stable combustion. > >> Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oi! You leave the personal habits of the pit crew out of it! Methanol does horrible stuff to your body... >Octane is a measure of stable combustion. >Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to >increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. But the distributors know that so they reduce the octane additive (toluene?) quantity to compensate. > Octane is a measure of stable combustion. > Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to > increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. Yes, but it also contains less energy (per unit) than gasoline, so you need more of the stuff to get where you want.... Richard. >>Of course I agree that the chance of them being right is quite large. >>But still... there also was general consensus that the earth was flat [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > FWIW - Columbus might have been a follower, not a leader, but that's a > whole 'nuther discussion. And then on to revising history as well, yes, it does repeat itself doesn't it..... >> FWIW - Columbus might have been a follower, not a leader, but that's a >> whole 'nuther discussion. > >And then on to revising history as well, yes, it does repeat itself doesn't >it..... Don't let Leif Erikson, evidence of explorations in New Foundland and possibly ME, USA, the Norse tower at RI shown on the first maps of North America drawn in the early 1500's, voyages accounted for by Venetian bothers Zeno in the late 1300's, or the fact that crops that only grow in North America were carved in stone in Rosslyn Chapel in the 1440's get in your way of that "Columbus had no knowledge" thing. > Don't let Leif Erikson, evidence of explorations in New Foundland and > possibly ME, USA, the Norse tower at RI shown on the first maps of > North America drawn in the early 1500's, voyages accounted for by > Venetian bothers Zeno in the late 1300's, or the fact that crops that > only grow in North America were carved in stone in Rosslyn Chapel in > the 1440's get in your way of that "Columbus had no knowledge" thing. You realize several of those are pretty shaky arguments: * The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is widely regarded as a fraud. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers * The "Norse tower" at Newport RI has been archaeologically investigated. The mortar was C14 dated to roughly 1680, and only 17th-century artifacts were found in the soil when they excavated around it. I don't know what Verrazano's and Mercator's maps were talking about, but according to the evidence it couldn't have been the tower. http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/other_artifacts.htm#n ewport * The Rosslyn Chapel carvings are very stylized, and have been interpreted by various specialists as wheat, strawberries or lilies. (I grew up on a farm in Iowa and it doesn't look like corn to me. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosslyn_Chapel >* The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is >widely regarded as a fraud. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers First, wikipedia is not an authoritative or accurate source for anything. It's an interesting starting point to stimulate real research. If you trace the arguments "disproving" the Zenos, you find that, as with most matters of historical discussion, the arguments of the later researchers are all based on the work of earlier researchers. With the Zenos, the key definable issue ends up back at a dating question concerning the original document's production date. An examination of that argument shows that the original researchers work is flawed and the earlier date is correct. I confess to not recalling the specifics of the dating issue. I can dig out my notes some time. I do agree that there is no conclusive evidence that the voyage they speak of can be shown to be to the "new world" and it may in fact be voyages to Greenland or Iceland . However, it does demonstrate Venetian knowledge (Southern Europe) of Norse journeys. Most historians agree the vikings at least reached New Foundland. Southern European knowledge of that makes it highly unlikely that Columbus would not have known of these voyages. >* The "Norse tower" at Newport RI has been archaeologically investigated. >The mortar was C14 dated to roughly 1680, and only 17th-century artifacts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/other_artifacts.htm#n >ewport Well, the argument is that the mortar that was tested was mortar used in repairs in the late 1600's - the building is acknowledged of having been used during those times. Regardless, if that is not the Norse tower, we still have the verified issue of the maps to deal with. Most historians have chosen to ignore that issue since it does not fit with their accepted theories of who was in the new world and when. >* The Rosslyn Chapel carvings are very stylized, and have been interpreted >by various specialists as wheat, strawberries or lilies. (I grew up on a >farm in Iowa and it doesn't look like corn to me. :-) >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosslyn_Chapel Again, wikipedia. There are several carvings (three plants as I recall) commonly concluded as coming from North America and nowhere else. There's more to it that you will see at wiki. The bottom line is that most people continually discount any suggestion that Christopher Columbus first "discovered America" - even though few even know that he never even saw North America. They recount this religiously since they've been told over and over that it is so. They discount facts that don't fit and choose to ignore them, simply because they don't fit. [... snip] > The bottom line is that most people continually discount any > suggestion that Christopher Columbus first "discovered America" - even > though few even know that he never even saw North America. They > recount this religiously since they've been told over and over that it > is so. They discount facts that don't fit and choose to ignore them, > simply because they don't fit. Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but it seems sort of silly to argue about who was first. You do of course know there were lots of people already living in north and south americe waaaaaay before any european got there? Will we next discuss who of those people came first? ;) Richard. >>* The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is >>widely regarded as a fraud. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers > > First, wikipedia is not an authoritative or accurate source for > anything. It's an interesting starting point to stimulate real > research. True, however, if you have a better source, fix the wikipedia and cite it. > The bottom line is that most people continually discount any > suggestion that Christopher Columbus first "discovered America" - even > though few even know that he never even saw North America. They > recount this religiously since they've been told over and over that it > is so. They discount facts that don't fit and choose to ignore them, > simply because they don't fit. (gasp!) that never happens. Also of note is the Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows. >>>* The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is >>>widely regarded as a fraud. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >True, however, if you have a better source, fix the wikipedia and cite >it. A good suggestion. I have done that before in other areas. Perhaps I will dig out the notes and post some counter points to ponder. >> The bottom line is that most people continually discount any >> suggestion that Christopher Columbus first "discovered America" - even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >(gasp!) that never happens. Also of note is the Viking settlement at >L'Anse aux Meadows. But somehow the suggestion that the Vikings told people about these excursions is considered outrageous :-) > >* The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is > >widely regarded as a fraud. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > historians have chosen to ignore that issue since it does not fit with > their accepted theories of who was in the new world and when. No, the maps are on such a scale that it's impossible to say with any certainty what is indicated, or whether it's at Newport or some other place along the east coast. It definitely isn't shown as a little tower on arches , exactly on the site of the Newport Tower. "- Bob -" <uctraing@ultranet.com> tried to fester up some reasoning with this gem: >>> And since when is truth determined by consensus? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > preventing action agree, I think it's a safe bet they know what they > are talking about. of course when 999/1000 of those same 'scientists' have a financial stake in the business of proving/regulating/continued research funding.... oh, never mind, not the right forum for that. Sorry....... please accept my apology....... Yes, there is a difference in the different octane fuels - IMHO. and no, I am not employed by any oil company, at least not that I know of, but since they do own the entire word perhaps I do! >of course when 999/1000 of those same 'scientists' have a financial stake in >the business of proving/regulating/continued research funding.... >oh, never mind, not the right forum for that. >Sorry....... please accept my apology....... ACtually, finding a reason for global warming will put most of those researchers out of a job. If their goal was continued funding, they'd go with the GWB theory of "we don't know why, we'd better keep looking at the problem". >Yes, there is a difference in the different octane fuels - IMHO. and no, I >am not employed by any oil company, at least not that I know of, but since >they do own the entire word perhaps I do! There is no difference in gasoline of a higher octane for a particular supplier except the higher octane. The US Gov't sued and prevailed against the oil companies to stop them from making these claims just a couple years ago. >>of course when 999/1000 of those same 'scientists' have a financial stake in >>the business of proving/regulating/continued research funding.... >>oh, never mind, not the right forum for that. >>Sorry....... please accept my apology....... > ACtually, finding a reason for global warming will put most of those > researchers out of a job. If their goal was continued funding, they'd > go with the GWB theory of "we don't know why, we'd better keep looking > at the problem". You know, growing up in the 1970s, I distinctly remember our 5th grade teacher telling us about the huge upcoming environmental crisis...global cooling, "the coming ice age" and all that. So...for some reason, algore's alarmist rantings just don't get my attention all that well. >You know, growing up in the 1970s, I distinctly remember our 5th grade >teacher telling us about the huge upcoming environmental crisis...global >cooling, "the coming ice age" and all that. > >So...for some reason, algore's alarmist rantings just don't get my >attention all that well. I don't give a squat about Al. I also know that the temperatures we are currently seeing are not historical highs if you look back before the "mini ice age" that started around 1200. However, there's a difference this time in that man does appear to be causing the issue. Who knows how the Earth can deal with that. In addition, man has a lot more investments that will be devastated by the impending rise in sea levels. Regardless of the cause, it's a problem. Whether it's warming or cooling, dramatic climatic changes have and will continue to cause serious issues. If we can counter or at least temper man's effects that would be a good thing. >>You know, growing up in the 1970s, I distinctly remember our 5th grade >>teacher telling us about the huge upcoming environmental crisis...global [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > more investments that will be devastated by the impending rise in sea > levels. Perhaps, but my point is, I've heard all this before and it was the other direction, just a couple decades ago. Which was crying wolf? > Regardless of the cause, it's a problem. Whether it's warming or > cooling, dramatic climatic changes have and will continue to cause > serious issues. If we can counter or at least temper man's effects > that would be a good thing. (shrug) I'm doing my part, I've planted many thousands of trees in my lifetime and reducing consumption where I can. My point is, this issue is so damn emotional that I don't trust any of the talking heads, on either side, to tell me what the real deal is so I can evaluate the data and come to a conclusion based on facts. "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> blathered: >>You know, growing up in the 1970s, I distinctly remember our 5th grade >>teacher telling us about the huge upcoming environmental crisis...global [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the "mini ice age" that started around 1200. However, there's a > difference this time in that man does appear to be causing the issue. Where is the real, factual, documented evidence that man is causing the warming? > Who knows how the Earth can deal with that. In addition, man has a lot > more investments that will be devastated by the impending rise in sea > levels. And why will the sea level rise? Melting glaciers? If that is the case then why doesn't my capt&morgan spill out over the top of the glass as the ice cubes melt? Isn't there something called displacement at work with the ice? > Regardless of the cause, it's a problem. Whether it's warming or > cooling, dramatic climatic changes have and will continue to cause > serious issues. If we can counter or at least temper man's effects > that would be a good thing. I think the UN should order that all volcanoes be fitted with scrubbers........ > Where is the real, factual, documented evidence that man is causing the > warming? Yeah, I've been asking that for years and I just get ranted at for daring to ask such a qustion. > And why will the sea level rise? Melting glaciers? If that is the case > then why doesn't my capt&morgan spill out over the top of the glass as the > ice cubes melt? Isn't there something called displacement at work with the > ice? Well, to be fair on that regard, if it's on land, then it's not floating. >Where is the real, factual, documented evidence that man is causing the >warming? There will never, ever, be evidence that some specific piece of carbon caused a specific change in the climate. The system is too large. If you think you've proved something by being able to poke that hole, go say a cheer for yourself. On the other hand, you could go read some research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see what it seems to be saying. >> Who knows how the Earth can deal with that. In addition, man has a lot >> more investments that will be devastated by the impending rise in sea [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ice cubes melt? Isn't there something called displacement at work with the >ice? If you pile the ice in the glass such that it rises above the top of the glass, then fill the glass with liquid, when the ice melts it will raise the level of the liquid. But, if this level of conceptual thinking is beyond you, I suggest you skip the research I suggested reading a moment ago. >>Where is the real, factual, documented evidence that man is causing the >>warming? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you think you've proved something by being able to poke that hole, go > say a cheer for yourself. He didn't ask for that, he asked for "...evidence that man is causing the warming?". > On the other hand, you could go read some > research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see > what it seems to be saying. Got pointers? >>And why will the sea level rise? Melting glaciers? If that is the case >>then why doesn't my capt&morgan spill out over the top of the glass as the >>ice cubes melt? Isn't there something called displacement at work with the >>ice? > If you pile the ice in the glass such that it rises above the top of > the glass, then fill the glass with liquid, when the ice melts it will > raise the level of the liquid. But, if this level of conceptual > thinking is beyond you, I suggest you skip the research I suggested > reading a moment ago. The point you're trying to make, and the point he's trying to make, are the same. He seems to have said it better. It's not about "rising above the top of the glass" (you can do that with floatation), it's about the ice that's sitting on something solid rather than floating. I also question your volumetrics but that's another problem. So...I'm not him, he's not me, but I'm still interested in unbiased research on this topic that I can read. And I'm still not getting any pointers. So I'm still treating the same as the "coming ice age" hype of the 1970s. >> On the other hand, you could go read some >> research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see >> what it seems to be saying. > >Got pointers? Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. >The point you're trying to make, and the point he's trying to make, are >the same. He seems to have said it better. It's not about "rising >above the top of the glass" (you can do that with floatation), it's >about the ice that's sitting on something solid rather than floating. I >also question your volumetrics but that's another problem. No, they're not. His (and your agreement) were some kind of childish suggestion that we're only dealing with "floating ice cubes". Oh, no, wait, call scientists around the world! John on the usenet just figured out that melting ice caps can't raise ocean levels based on a simple experiment in a glass! They'll all be mighty embarrassed they didn't figure this out for themselves. >So...I'm not him, he's not me, but I'm still interested in unbiased >research on this topic that I can read. And I'm still not getting any >pointers. So I'm still treating the same as the "coming ice age" hype >of the 1970s. What happened in the 70's is irrelevant. Nearly all climate scientists agree on what's happening (with the notable exception except those being bludgeoned by the Bush administration to temper their writings on the subject). Either go do some reading or just continue to act like an ideologue - your choice. >>>On the other hand, you could go read some >>>research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. You aren't going to find "proof" from Googling, just hyperbole on both sides of the issue. Why? Because it is impossible to prove or disprove a theory such as this. That is, unless you know of a parallel universe in which we can maintain a control group planet earth... Signature-Fred W >You aren't going to find "proof" from Googling, just hyperbole on both >sides of the issue. > >Why? Because it is impossible to prove or disprove a theory such as >this. That is, unless you know of a parallel universe in which we can >maintain a control group planet earth... I mentioned that in another post Fred. The system is too large. The naysayers are clamoring around, and will continue to do so, claiming there's no absolute proof. There will never be absolute proof. There will be reasonable conclusions. So far the great majority of the world's scientists and every other industrialized nation (the USA notably excepted) have made reasonable conclusions about global warming. However, they will continue to let their mindless ideological purity align them with campaigns which they support simply for ideology, not realizing they are mere puppets of those who profit handsomely from their support. >>You aren't going to find "proof" from Googling, just hyperbole on both >>sides of the issue. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > realizing they are mere puppets of those who profit handsomely from > their support. Sorry, I can't respond now as I've got to go pay my carbon fuel tax and purchase enough carbon offsets to pay for next week's computer usage and car usage that I use to go to work to pay my taxes which pays the salaries for people to collect the taxes and run the carbon offset programs and do the research that shows we need more carbon taxes and higher carbon offset fees.......... >> However, they will continue to let their mindless ideological purity >> align them with campaigns which they support simply for ideology, not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >research that shows we need more carbon taxes and higher carbon offset >fees.......... Thanks for proving my point. >>> On the other hand, you could go read some >>> research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. Perhaps you missed the "factual and not biased, alarmist handwaving" part of my request. >>The point you're trying to make, and the point he's trying to make, are >>the same. He seems to have said it better. It's not about "rising >>above the top of the glass" (you can do that with floatation), it's >>about the ice that's sitting on something solid rather than floating. I >>also question your volumetrics but that's another problem. > No, they're not. His (and your agreement) were some kind of childish > suggestion that we're only dealing with "floating ice cubes". Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points clearly. > Oh, no, wait, call scientists around the world! John on the usenet > just figured out that melting ice caps can't raise ocean levels based > on a simple experiment in a glass! They'll all be mighty embarrassed > they didn't figure this out for themselves. Your reading comprehension is as poor as your social skills. >>So...I'm not him, he's not me, but I'm still interested in unbiased >>research on this topic that I can read. And I'm still not getting any >>pointers. So I'm still treating the same as the "coming ice age" hype >>of the 1970s. > What happened in the 70's is irrelevant. And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got any data to support one or the other? > Either go do some reading or just continue to act like an ideologue - > your choice. See what I mean about getting attacked for asking for information? >>>> On the other hand, you could go read some >>>> research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got > any data to support one or the other? My memory is rather that of ice age predictions being thousand years or more in the future, not within less than 100 years. If you gooogle on "ice age prediction" there comes a lot of references (like http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ )to the 70-ies where you basically see that the scientists where not speaking about imminent ice age occurence but it was rather the popular press that shortened the forecast. It seems more like a myth that in the 70-ies imminent ice age predictions were frequently occuring. Signatureth >> Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. > >Perhaps you missed the "factual and not biased, alarmist handwaving" >part of my request. Dig around, you can find something factual. Oh wait, that might require work on your part and you always want other people to do your work for you. >Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points >clearly. Don't presume I'd want to speak for you. It would be embarrassing. >Your reading comprehension is as poor as your social skills. Really? I did pretty good in school on those tests they gave us. >> What happened in the 70's is irrelevant. > >And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got >any data to support one or the other? Let me repeat: what happened in the 70's is irrelevant. What is today, is. >> Either go do some reading or just continue to act like an ideologue - >> your choice. > >See what I mean about getting attacked for asking for information? You're not being attacked, you're being highlighted. >>> Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > require work on your part and you always want other people to do your > work for you. I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of providing same. >>Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points >>clearly. > > Don't presume I'd want to speak for you. It would be embarrassing. At least you're nearing self-awareness. Let me guess - I've plonked you before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right? >>And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got >>any data to support one or the other? > > Let me repeat: what happened in the 70's is irrelevant. What is today, > is. Riiiiight. So. One last try there sparky. Why should I believe this batch of idiots more than the batch of idiots 20 years ago? They both seem to have the same basic ideas, but with opposite results. What's the real deal, and why? Hint: if you respond with abuse, that weakens your credibility. Just so you know. >>See what I mean about getting attacked for asking for information? > > You're not being attacked, you're being highlighted. Right. So give me something useful then fi you can. >I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of >providing same. Wrong conclusion. Once again, I invite you to do your own research. >At least you're nearing self-awareness. Let me guess - I've plonked you >before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right? Aside from the fact that "plonking" is a habit of the truly lame, you're even lamer - because you claim to plonk people and never do. >> Let me repeat: what happened in the 70's is irrelevant. What is today, >> is. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the real deal, and why? Hint: if you respond with abuse, that weakens >your credibility. Just so you know. Let me try one more time: what people said 20 years ago has no bearing on the scientific realities today. Continually claiming that it does really makes you look very foolish. >>I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of >>providing same. > > Wrong conclusion. Once again, I invite you to do your own research. Yawn. I was hoping that you had something factual to back up your rantings. Apparentely you do not. If I wanted algore's crap, that, I could find easy enough. Was looking for actual science, you see, and since you seem to pretend you have same, asked you for it. >>At least you're nearing self-awareness. Let me guess - I've plonked you >>before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right? > > Aside from the fact that "plonking" is a habit of the truly lame, > you're even lamer - because you claim to plonk people and never do. Show me one example, in the last dozen years, of me saying <plonk> to somoene and then responding to posts from the same address. Hint: you can't. >>Riiiiight. So. One last try there sparky. Why should I believe this >>batch of idiots more than the batch of idiots 20 years ago? They both [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on the scientific realities today. Continually claiming that it does > really makes you look very foolish. I never "claimed" anything, I'm asking for evidence to show me I should believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch. It's obvious you have nothing to add to this conversation. > I never "claimed" anything, I'm asking for evidence to show me I should > believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch. One batch of idiots a while back claimed the earth was flat, so I saw no reason to believe the next batch who said it was round. Then there was the batch who claimed the sun orbited the earth, so obviously it made no sense to pay attention to the batch who said it didn't... That's a pretty intellectually bankrupt position, Dave. Just because one theory is proved wrong doesn't mean all future theories are wrong. New data and new understanding give better insights into the workings of very complex systems. Do we have the ultimate understanding now? Of course not, and we're very unlikely to anytime soon. But we think we have a good handle on what's happening, and a significant number of experts believe there is cause to get very worried. (No, I'm not talking about Gore, who is just a motivated publicist. I'm talking about the scientists doing the work. And no, I'm not offering to do your research for you, since you'd probably reject it anyway.) Many of the things that would make sense to do if global warming IS real, also make sense if you're starting to run short on energy supplies and starting to overpopulate your planet. Which, surprise, we are. So even if it turns out global warming was a false alarm, reducing our energy usage and pollution footprint is a smart thing to do anyway. >> I never "claimed" anything, I'm asking for evidence to show me I should >> believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch. > > One batch of idiots a while back claimed the earth was flat, so I saw no > reason to believe the next batch who said it was round. You're missing my point. I believed the last batch of idiots because, at the time, authority figures told me to do so. I was 10. This time I'm older and want to get solid data before just blindly accepting what the claims are. Yet, every time I ask for it, people like Bob get all pissed off that I dare to ask for solid data. > That's a pretty intellectually bankrupt position, Dave. Just because one > theory is proved wrong doesn't mean all future theories are wrong. New > data and new understanding give better insights into the workings of very > complex systems. Great. So tell you what. How about YOU send me to a reputable site with good, solid data, rather than abuse and alarmist handwaving. > Do we have the ultimate understanding now? Of course not, and we're very > unlikely to anytime soon. But we think we have a good handle on what's > happening, and a significant number of experts believe there is cause to > get very worried. Show me the science. > (No, I'm not talking about Gore, who is just a motivated > publicist. I'm talking about the scientists doing the work. And no, I'm > not offering to do your research for you, since you'd probably reject it > anyway.) Why is it that asking for data elicits such a response from people like you? > Many of the things that would make sense to do if global warming IS real, SHOW ME. > also make sense if you're starting to run short on energy supplies and > starting to overpopulate your planet. Which, surprise, we are. So even if > it turns out global warming was a false alarm, reducing our energy usage > and pollution footprint is a smart thing to do anyway. Yeah, no sh.t. Now get back to global warming. Show me the data. > Great. So tell you what. How about YOU send me to a reputable site > with good, solid data, rather than abuse and alarmist handwaving. OK, here are several: Vostok ice cores show CO2 levels have jumped 20% within the last 100 years, to levels not seen in the last half-million years. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index .html I don't think anyone has any rational explanation for the sudden and unprecedented (within the last 500k years) spike in CO2, unless it is caused by human activity. Given the amount of fossil fuels that humans burn, it would be hard to argue humans AREN'T causing the spike in CO2. Coal releases about 200lbs of CO2 per million BTUs when completely burned (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html). If we assume the carbon in oil and natural gas burns in a similar way, and also produces about 200lbs per million BTUs, we can then use the current annual world fossil-fuel consumption of 200 * 10^15 BTUs (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_2.pdf) to estimate a yearly dump of 4*10^13 pounds (20 BILLION TONS) of CO2 from oil, coal, and gas. If I'm figuring right, that works out to about 6667 pounds of CO2 per year -- weighing as much as a Hummer H2!! -- for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Of course, since North American accounts for about HALF of that consumption, that is about SIX Hummer's worth of CO2 per person in North America. This is far more than, for example, volcanic sources; man-made sources create 150x more CO2 than volcanic sources (http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html). And it only started happening about 100-120 years ago. So I think we have to assume humans have caused the spike in CO2 levels. So why worry about CO2 levels? In the ice-core record, temperatures are highly correlated to CO2 levels. No one knows for sure what's cause and what's effect, but in the past the two track pretty closely. In the last 100 years, temps have increased consistently with CO2 increases, and we established above that the CO2 increases are almost certainly man-made. This is not a proof, but does strongly indicate man- made CO2 increases are driving the temperature increases. One of the projected impacts of climate change is an increase in sea level. This chart shows the observed increase in sea level over the last 15 years. Not only are sea levels rising, but the rate of change is accelerating. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming- basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/slr.cfm Another projected impact of global warming is increased number and severity of tropical storms. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming- basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/storms.cfm I could keep going, but that's what I found in about 20 minutes of searching. This is all good, solid data. No abuse or alarmist handwaving. Satisfied? If you want to look at computer modeling -- which is of course based on theory rather than hard observational data -- here's a comparison of two models simulating global climate. One includes only *natural* drivers (sun, volcanic emissions, etc), while the other includes man-made drivers (human-produced greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols). Guess which one matches the observed temperatures. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming- basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm Now I've done your homework for you, or at least enough to demonstrate that there IS a lot of cold, hard data supporting the global-warming argument. I leave it to you to either bury your head in the sand and ignore all this data, or admit that there seems to be something going on here. Even if your 5th grade teacher was wrong. >> Great. So tell you what. How about YOU send me to a reputable site >> with good, solid data, rather than abuse and alarmist handwaving. (snip of really good info) > Another projected impact of global warming is increased number and > severity of tropical storms. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > searching. This is all good, solid data. No abuse or alarmist > handwaving. Satisfied? Gives me a bunch to read. Thanks; that's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to get. > Now I've done your homework for you, or at least enough to demonstrate > that there IS a lot of cold, hard data supporting the global-warming > argument. Gary, going from helpful to arrogant doesn't help you make your point. > I leave it to you to either bury your head in the sand and > ignore all this data, or admit that there seems to be something going on > here. Even if your 5th grade teacher was wrong. Ahhhh...good feeling's gone. > Ahhhh...good feeling's gone. Sorry Dave. But I lost any good feeling when you insisted other people do your work for you. You could have spent the time you used to say "show me, find it for me, I refuse to believe this and I refuse to look for myself" to find more info than I presented here. >> Ahhhh...good feeling's gone. > > Sorry Dave. But I lost any good feeling when you insisted other people do > your work for you. You could have spent the time you used to say "show me, > find it for me, I refuse to believe this and I refuse to look for myself" Try again, Gary. Googling for info on this got me nothing but biased sites. Which is why I asked the question here. It's funny - you have confirmed, if nothing else, that the mere act of asking for unbiased information on the topic, pisses off people like you. I wonder why that is. > Try again, Gary. Googling for info on this got me nothing but biased > sites. *shrug* I googled for the sites I gave you, and found them all in literally 20 minutes. Of course there are tons of biased sites out there -- this IS the internet after all :-) -- but there are unbiased sources too. You just have to look for them. You do have to be smart about your search terms. Searching for "global warming" is like searching for "abortion" -- you'll get more flamefests than information. Search for things like "co2 levels" or "ocean levels" or "volcano co2" and you'll get much a much better signal-to-noise ratio. > It's funny - you have confirmed, if nothing else, that the mere act > of asking for unbiased information on the topic, pisses off people > like you. I wonder why that is. It is not the mere act of acting. It is the attitude with which you ask. If you always/often get this reaction when you ask for information, perhaps you should consider the common element in all those situations: the person doing the asking. Maybe "people like me" get annoyed with the "I refuse to believe this, and I refuse to do my own research, so you do it for me, and if you don't do it for me then it's all rehashed 'ice age' hype" routine. And maybe "people like me" get a bit nettled when you keep calling us "people like you." As if you've got some tidy little category of raving global-warming fanatics who always act a certain way, and of *course* I'm one of them. (I'm really tempted to ask "Why do 'people like you' do that, anyway?" but that would be just as bad as what you're doing.) I've provided unbiased information about this and many other topics on many forums for many years. When someone is genuinely unaware of how to start, or genuinely unaware of sources to look for, I'm glad to help. When someone says "I'm too lazy to look, and I insist you look for me," I'm a little less inclined to be helpful. >> Try again, Gary. Googling for info on this got me nothing but biased >> sites. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than information. Search for things like "co2 levels" or "ocean levels" > or "volcano co2" and you'll get much a much better signal-to-noise ratio. See how much easier that would have gone if you'd just done that part? It wouldn't have occured to me to google for "volcano CO2" for instance. >> It's funny - you have confirmed, if nothing else, that the mere act >> of asking for unbiased information on the topic, pisses off people >> like you. I wonder why that is. > > It is not the mere act of acting. It is the attitude with which you ask. Apparently you're reading more in to my words than are being put in there. > If you always/often get this reaction when you ask for information, > perhaps you should consider the common element in all those situations: > the person doing the asking. It's just this topic and other highly emotional ones, oddly enough. > Maybe "people like me" get annoyed with the "I refuse to believe this, > and I refuse to do my own research, so you do it for me, and if you don't > do it for me then it's all rehashed 'ice age' hype" routine. Funny thing about Usenet, Gary, if you don't want to answer a question, you can ignore it. > I've provided unbiased information about this and many other topics on > many forums for many years. When someone is genuinely unaware of how to > start, or genuinely unaware of sources to look for, I'm glad to help. > When someone says "I'm too lazy to look, and I insist you look for me," > I'm a little less inclined to be helpful. When you put quotation marks around a statement, it as if you are, you know, quoting them. I never said the quote you are attributing to me. > See how much easier that would have gone if you'd just done that part? Maybe so. It would also have been much less antagonistic if you'd just said "I've tried googling for 'global warming' and all I get is biased sites. How can I find some unbiased information?" See how different that is from > Show me the science. > Why is it that asking for data elicits such a response from people like you? > SHOW ME. > Yeah, no sh.t. Now get back to global warming. Show me the data. ...etc > Apparently you're reading more in to my words than are being put in > there. Possible. Communication over Usenet is infamous for that. What say we agree to assume positive motives on the other guy's part, and bury the hatchet. Sniping at each other doesn't help anybody. Pax. Gary >>Try again, Gary. Googling for info on this got me nothing but biased >>sites. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- this IS the internet after all :-) -- but there are unbiased sources > too. You just have to look for them. Ah yes. The unbiased ones would be the ones that agree with your predisposed position? Signature-Fred W >>>Try again, Gary. Googling for info on this got me nothing but biased >>>sites. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ah yes. The unbiased ones would be the ones that agree with your > predisposed position? Exactly! > Ah yes. The unbiased ones would be the ones that agree with your > predisposed position? Look at the ones I posted. They are postings of hard observational data. I consider data to be inherently unbiased. When you start drawing conclusions and deriving theories from the data, then the bias starts to creep in. But the data itself is just data. (Yes, it is absolutely true that you can construct an experiment to skew the data toward your desired outcome. That would then be biased data. But I find it difficult to imagine how you could do that with sea levels, numbers of tropical storms, or Antarctic ice cores.) >> Ah yes. The unbiased ones would be the ones that agree with your >> predisposed position? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I find it difficult to imagine how you could do that with sea levels, > numbers of tropical storms, or Antarctic ice cores.) O... that would be an easy one: Just change the way you count. You dont have to "construct" anything, it does not have to be a rational decision. For me, a tropical storm might be something different from your tropical storm. Antarctic ice cores: who says the CO2 stays in the ice and never goes anywhere? We simply dont know that, not for SURE at least. How and where do you measure your rising sea levels? At high tide? At low tide? Spring tide? At high winds? No wind? No wind for how long? Sea levels are not nearly as constant annd predictable as you would assume, a little wind for a few days make the water rise or fall by half a meter regularly here. I live in the Netherlands, I like to do some sailing every now and then. Plenty of water, and plenty of sea levels. DIFFERENT sea levels. From one day to the next. Even "counting" and "measuring" is much more subjective than we like it to be. But I do agree that raw data is best to make up your own mind, but only IF it comes with how and where and when the data was obtained. Richard. > that would be an easy one: Just change the way you count. > For me, a tropical storm might be something different from your > tropical storm. Quite possible. However, I might point out that the data counting tropical storms comes from the National Hurricane Center, a division of the US National Weather Service. Which is not generally considered a wild-eyed raving algore-ist global-warming fanatic organization. You can find the data used in that chart at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html. It's possible the criteria used to define "named storms" have changed over time. I can't find a reference for that. However that page also has history for hurricanes and "major" hurricanes. I believe those numbers result from applying the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale to weather records for the last 160 years, which should produce fairly consistent results. The 10-yr average for hurricanes is higher than at any time in the previous 10 years. Moreover the 10-yr average of "major hurricanes" (S-S level 3-5) has been dramatically higher in most of the last 50 years than in the 100 years before that, and it is currently at or near a record high. I will concede that we may be detecting more tropical storms (with current satellite technology) that were previously missed because they never made landfall. But it seems unlikely that major hurricanes could have been missed. They cover enough territory that even 1850's sailing ships would have encountered them. > How and where do you measure your rising sea levels? At high tide? At > low tide? Spring tide? At high winds? No wind? No wind for how long? > Sea levels are not nearly as constant annd predictable as you would > assume, a little wind for a few days make the water rise or fall by > half a meter regularly here. If you think the scientists who did these studies (and there are MANY people reviewing the JASON/TOPEX data) would change their measurement methods in the middle of a study, or ignore obvious factors like tides and winds, and then use that slipshod methodology to publish claims of rising sea levels -- then you do not understand how scientific papers are published and reviewed. The offending scientists would be laughed out of their profession. Information on these studies is available online. You are free to dig into it yourself, or not. If you think there is some kind of liberal conspiracy that's fabricating or altering this data, then you probably won't believe anything you find, but I invite you to go look. Gary >If you think the scientists who did these studies (and there are MANY >people reviewing the JASON/TOPEX data) would change their measurement [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >published and reviewed. The offending scientists would be laughed out of >their profession. Exactly Gary... but don't think that will stop "them" from suggesting the same, directly or indirectly. >Information on these studies is available online. You are free to dig >into it yourself, or not. If you think there is some kind of liberal >conspiracy that's fabricating or altering this data, then you probably >won't believe anything you find, but I invite you to go look. Again, you hit the nail on the head. If I dare to wax political for a moment, you'll find that the neo-con business slime (i.e. not real conservatives) running the Republican Party for their own personal/monetary benefit for many years now have continually drummed the "pollution control is going to cost you more out of your wallet and make the USA non-competitive and cost you your job(s)". I really congratulate them on their marketing and sales skills, as they have brainwashed the ignorant masses who chew on sound bites to believe this and oft repeat it with fervor. People like Dick Cheney and friends have reached a pinnacle of success in this effort. This isn't about politics, it's about money. Unfortunately, these masses believe the simplistic logic that forcing someone like Exxon-Mobil to pay for the pollution their product manufacture and use causes means that they will pay more "at the pump". This ignores the fact that E-M is now making 10b per quarter *profit* (along with similar profits from other oil co's) and could easily pay for such refinements out of their pocket. Would they? Only if/when the people get a clue. In any event, if you create (or use) a product which has a environmental cost, you have a responsibility to pay for it. Unfortunately, while these slime and their minions preach social and personal responsibility, they hide from it every chance. As for the "it will cost the USA jobs" - well, nearly every other country in the world is/has signed on to clean things up - but somehow if the USA companies do it, it makes them non-competitive. They also conveniently ignore that they continue to universally import cheap foreign labor indirectly though "outsourcing" to the third world and through the incredible increases they seek in immigration, amnesty, and unlimited H1B visas that lead to direct imports of labor and eliminate jobs for existing Americans. These companies could literally not care any less about the US people. They are simply a labor force or customer base to be used to best advantage to maximize corporate profit, extravagant CEO pay, and to fill the pockets of those who truly run things in the world - country be damned. >> that would be an easy one: Just change the way you count. >> For me, a tropical storm might be something different from your [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Gary Gary, first of all: You completely mis-interpret my words, and take them to mean something they do not say. What I mean to say is that there is much more to the "hard data" than you think there is. Hard data is not so hard when examined in detail. That holds true for all the links and pointers you have provided so far. The things / facts presented are NOT the data. They are summaries of research and sometimes even contain conclusions. BE VERY CAREFUL to take that as DATA, because in most cases it is NOT. The reports are created by HUMANS, who try to interpret the data, and give meaning to the numbers. Another person / researcher with the same data might end up at a different conclusion. Example below. Science is oh so much more complex and subltle than most people like it to be. It does NOT present the truth. It is not meant to do do that. And please do not get me wrong here: I am very concerned about the climate change. Dont try to even push me towards the "ignore" camp, that just shows you do not understand the details. I am just VERY critical of the way things are presented as FACTS, when they are clearly only interpretations or models. As for the hurricanes: From the page you linked to: Subject: E11) How many tropical cyclones have there been each year in the Atlantic basin? What years were the greatest and fewest seen? Contributed by Chris Landsea Starting in 1944, systematic aircraft reconnaissance was commenced for monitoring both tropical cyclones and disturbances that had the potential to develop into tropica cyclones. This is why both Neumann et al. (1993) and Landsea (1993) recommend utilizing data since 1944 for computing climatological statistics. However, for tropical cyclones striking the USA East and Gulf coasts - because of highly populated coast lines, data with good reliability extends back to around 1899. Thus, the following records hold for the entire Atlantic basin (from 1944-present) and for the USA coastline (1899-present): <snip> This says that they indeed changed their way of measuring twice. Once around 1899, and once again in 1944. I assume they tried to make the data fit as best as they could, as a scientist is supposed to. But still... all 3 different measuring systems are incoorporated into 2 tables, and the conclusion might seem obvious. BUT IT IS NOT. Where are the exact observations from around 1900? What changed in 1944? Are satellite measurements included? Since when? No mention of any of this. What I want to say is: this is compiled data, NOT hard facts or raw data. This is already an interpretation. A few more things about that page: 1: Did you also notice that the number of years with no hurricanes are spread over the entire range of the table? 2: Where is the data from before 1850? This is not very much data to draw any serious conclusion on. 3: Of course you know that windspeed at sea is different from windspeed over land, right? 4: How many observing post where there in 1850 and how did they measure these things? 5: From the page: * As a footnote, 1933 is recorded as being the most active of any Atlantic basin season on record (reliable or otherwise) with 21 tropical storms and hurricanes. + 1886 is recorded as the most active hurricane season for the continental USA with 7 landfalling hurricanes. And still YOUR conclusion is that there are more hurricanes in the last 50 years? That is a strange conclusion. If you are still here and reading this: I have put the numbers from that page in a spreadsheet and made some nice graph of it. I want you to see it. It does show te ME that there is NO soignificant change in the number or severity in THIS DATA. Please give me an email adress and I will send you the file, and you should take a look for yourself. Or better: I will publish the whole thing on a website somewhere. Well... so far for hard data and insults. I like a good discussion, but this is just a shouting excercise. I am out. Sorry. Good luck, Richard. > Gary, > > first of all: > You completely mis-interpret my words, and take them to mean something they > do not say. You noticed that too, did you? >> Gary, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You noticed that too, did you? Dave, yes... but you sometimes tend to do the same... ;) :-P Richard >Dave, >yes... >but you sometimes tend to do the same... ;) No $hit. Also, he's never satisfied with the way anyone "reads" what he writes - it looks like English but apparently it's some mysterious alter-version where only Dave knows the true meaning. >>Dave, >>yes... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > he writes - it looks like English but apparently it's some mysterious > alter-version where only Dave knows the true meaning. NoName, I was talking to Dave, sorry, not you. if you give me your email I will gladly send you the same graphs. Just curious about your opinion. Richard. >>Dave, >>yes... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > he writes - it looks like English but apparently it's some mysterious > alter-version where only Dave knows the true meaning. Yeah, almost like I want people to back up with evidence when it's clear when they're speaking out of their a.s or something. >>> Gary, >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > yes... > but you sometimes tend to do the same... ;) At least I don't nym-shift. What's YOUR excuse there, sparky? >>>> Gary, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > At least I don't nym-shift. What's YOUR excuse there, sparky? Dave, what is nym-shift and who is Sparky? Richard. > first of all: > You completely mis-interpret my words, and take them to mean something > they do not say. I apologize. That's a weakness of written communication, and I'll freely admit I might have responded a bit defensively. You raise some excellent points. I don't really have any argument with anything you said. It's possible that e.g. the storm measurement criteria changed at various points in time, but I think it is equally possible that the trends indicated by the data are still valid. If you look only at the data since 1944, the data (for everything but named storms) does not look as dramatically out of norm as the named-storm chart I referenced. I think a number of sources indicate a very likely problem in many areas -- not absolute certainty of course, but a likely and disturbing trend. I also think the kinds of responses that we should take IF those trends are true (reducing wasteful energy usage, reducing pollution, etc), are sensible responses to other issues (scarce energy sources, overpopulation, ecological problems, etc). So it mystifies me why some people are so resistant to even considering the possibility that there is a threat of major climate change. > I have put the numbers from that page in a spreadsheet and made some > nice graph of it. > I want you to see it. Thanks, but I built my own spreadsheet, so I've probably already seen basically the same graph. Thanks for your sensible and reasoned comments! Gary > I don't think anyone has any rational explanation for the sudden and > unprecedented (within the last 500k years) spike in CO2, unless it is > caused by human activity. I think it was caused by termites. There's a freeking lot of them. Prove me wrong. Signature-Fred W >> I don't think anyone has any rational explanation for the sudden and >> unprecedented (within the last 500k years) spike in CO2, unless it is >> caused by human activity. > > I think it was caused by termites. There's a freeking lot of them. Prove > me wrong. Actually, my associates and I have recently applied for Federal funding for a grant to research that global warming is caused by the flatulence produced from human vegan diets. >You're missing my point. I believed the last batch of idiots because, >at the time, authority figures told me to do so. I was 10. This time >I'm older and want to get solid data before just blindly accepting what >the claims are. Yet, every time I ask for it, people like Bob get all >pissed off that I dare to ask for solid data. Not pissed off at all Dave. Just want you to do your own work - it's your planet too. You need to get over this thing from the 70's though, its really handicapping you. > (No, I'm not talking about Gore, who is just a motivated > publicist. I'm talking about the scientists doing the work. And no, I'm > not offering to do your research for you, since you'd probably reject it > anyway.) >Why is it that asking for data elicits such a response from people like >you? Because people have seen you work before? Because you're expecting others to do the research for you? Because the very fact that you post "people like you" tells us where you are going with this? >>Why is it that asking for data elicits such a response from people like >>you? > Because people have seen you work before? Because you're expecting > others to do the research for you? Because the very fact that you post > "people like you" tells us where you are going with this? Then why do you keep nymshifting and crawling out of the killfile? >> Because people have seen you work before? Because you're expecting >> others to do the research for you? Because the very fact that you post >> "people like you" tells us where you are going with this? > >Then why do you keep nymshifting and crawling out of the killfile? I don't nymshift for you Dave, you think too much of yourself. > Because people have seen you work before? Because you're expecting > others to do the research for you? Citing a few web sites hardly qualifies as research. Well, maybe it does at some colleges... but it isn't. Really. Signature-Fred W >>You're missing my point. I believed the last batch of idiots because, >>at the time, authority figures told me to do so. I was 10. This time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > your planet too. You need to get over this thing from the 70's though, > its really handicapping you. and stay away from the green acid too! >> (No, I'm not talking about Gore, who is just a motivated >> publicist. I'm talking about the scientists doing the work. And no, I'm [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > others to do the research for you? Because the very fact that you post > "people like you" tells us where you are going with this? Here is a source of unbiased information - a book titled "Trashing The Planet" by Dixy Lee Ray. >>I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of >>providing same. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > on the scientific realities today. Continually claiming that it does > really makes you look very foolish. Exposed: The Climate of Fear - Wednesday, May 2nd The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate CNN Headline News Channel http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/index.shtml >Exposed: The Climate of Fear - Wednesday, May 2nd >The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate >CNN Headline News Channel >http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/index.shtml Now there's an unbiased source. >>Exposed: The Climate of Fear - Wednesday, May 2nd >>The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate >>CNN Headline News Channel >>http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/index.shtml > > Now there's an unbiased source. More?: A book titled "Trashing the Planet" by Dixy Lee Ray > "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> blathered: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Where is the real, factual, documented evidence that man is causing the > warming? surely the 1st Q is whether it is going to happen - and the next is whether anything we can do makes a significant difference? if your house ends up under water, do you care whether it is caused by solar variations, earth axis wobble or greenhouse effect or whatever alternatives get offered? You still need a new house or flood protection...... and the ones who should be really upset are those already at or below current sea level? > > Who knows how the Earth can deal with that. In addition, man has a lot > > more investments that will be devastated by the impending rise in sea [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ice cubes melt? Isn't there something called displacement at work with the > ice? lots of cubic Km of ice in the Antartic, on Greenland and other polar land. AFAIR a chunk of the projected sea level rise is because as the average temp rises, the water already in the oceans expands with the temp change. > > Regardless of the cause, it's a problem. Whether it's warming or > > cooling, dramatic climatic changes have and will continue to cause [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think the UN s |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message