If you have the time and energy, discussing the Bible with the various God Botherers can be quite entertaining.
It helps if they are dragging their kids along with them, because it doesn't take much to engage their brains. The last time that happened, the kid's reaction was to incredulously ask her mother "does the Bible really say that?". The mother declined to answer, and the kid noted that.
Please do so.
The Keeling Wiki link seems to say it was 313PPM in 1958, which would make your old book say 0.03...
Andy
There's not much point in discussing things with Climate Change True Believers either. They site demonstrated bad computer simulations and scream "Science!" just as if it were a religion and asking questions is blasphemy.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
They tried testing hair samples from tedious Usenet right-wingers at first; unfortunately the samples were too contaminated with leaded gasoline residue and illuminating gas from 1914 to be of much use.
Ya, "they" went and altered every chemistry compendium and textbook in existence in every library and university in the world produced in the last 100 years.
doesn't sound paranoid at all.
Clearly you are a kind and charitable man, but I amnot sure the two are even comparable. if I say to you that I have evidence that black is white and the earth is flat you are entitled to dismiss me as a fool.
TW
There are almost no climate change deniers, the climate has been changing for ever, and forever and forever will, the discussion is by how much and why..
If you're a scientist who wants to make big money then work for the oil industry is what you would do, they're the ones with the big money to pay you. There's comparatively very little money in being an alarmist as compared to saying "just keep on truckin'"
The big names in anti-AGW science, such as it is, aside from the majority not being climate scientists but just holding public-credibility-degrees in a different field are all well-compensated for their services
Some Americans reject the notion that petroleum is of biological origin at all, this would conflict with the Biblically-derived true age of the Earth at approximately 8,000 years old.
I don't know if anyone's ever done a public poll on it but I'd imagine around 50% of Americans believe the supply is unlimited/infinite and that it is continuously produced in large quantities underground by some undiscovered natural geological process
yeah those people. I am not arguing with fools. TW
Actually scratch that I would guess around 20-40% of Americans have no idea what crude oil is or what it's used for or where it comes from
Your opinions are weak compared to evidence from the vast research by Beck on the accuracy of historical data and methods of collection with global results.
more
Yes, well *of course* they have to try to discredit the old methods, because if they didn't, their phoney figures simply would not add up.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
You don't get it. Historical records of CO2 for example from layers of ice in the Antarctic are done by the modern methods of spectroscopic absorptio n in the 4500nm range so your opinion of political bias is BUNK and lacks s cientific research skills. Many other methods are also used to backup this data and of course real-time data close to CO2 urban emissions changes gre atly but the ice-core samples are consistent with many other methods.
I thought you knew better.
Precisely. Just like arguing with AGW'rs. It's no more than a religion.
On Nov 25, 2018, John Larkin wrote (in article):
We have been here before. It was Global _Cooling_ in 1975:
.Joe Gwinn
To reiterate, in my lifetime, less in fact. I have calibrated gas monitors that were part of an accredited iso system and can verify that over the 25 years of my dealing with these monitors the increase in measured CO2 is over 10%.
This was using different types of analyser [wet cell, FTIR] and in different parts of the UK. The change should stir up concerns amongst anyone, not just those interested in salvaging what remains of the coral reefs.
Should anyone have any doubts, doomed dimwit, the originator of the select your own science drivel, has also been endlessly spouting about the benefits of Brexit. Not really a lot to add is there?
AB
Don't forget that CD has repeatedly stated that Russia Today is a reputable news source.
Yes I remember. It's easy to dismiss global warming as "project fear", but the thing to bear in mind is that even in the seventies we did not have the facility to monitor and assimilate data on the scale we can now.
I prsume that the data was extremely limited, being restricted to official Met recordings, in which case a trend could be developed readily to prove almost anything if you choose the correct data start and stop points.
I assume none traceable measurements or deductions or extrapolating effects to temperature levels were not included.
The frost fairs on the Thames were obviously ignored by the 70's ice age merchants. But that's not too surprising is it?
Brexit needed a fair bit of ignorance to get to this point also.
Same stupidity, same morons wanting to believe unfounded drivel.
AB
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.