OT: Getting climate change under cotrol.

The agreers might not like it more. They think government can solve things that don't involve them.

Greg

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

The window of opportunity for us to actually fix the problem has already closed. We need now to wake folks up to it and do what little dribs and drbs we can. But the idea of full repair is toast.

I personally feel that if we do not start making huge hundreds of square mile reservoirs in the deserts of the globe for polar water placement (sealed from evap), that we will miss any chance of fiximg that fact that we failed to notice the amount of water in the oceans.

ntereswtign article

What's that supposed to mean?

Accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming mainly invol ves knowing enough about science.

Slowing it down involves burning less fossil carbon. The people that genera te our electricity currently burn a lot of fossil carbon. Governments could encourage them to burn less, and spend more on the storage schemes that wo uld let them use more wind and solar power, but the government wouldn't be solving the problem.

Once the electricity generation system is less dependent on burning fossil carbon, it would make sense to move to electric cars, rather than burning m ore fossil carbon in internal combustion engines. Government could encourag e the move, but people would have to buy the electric cars, so again the go vernment wouldn't be solving the problem.

Perhaps you think that accepting the scientific case for anthropogenic glob al warming is part of a left-wing political package - it certainly looks as if right-wing nit-wits feel obliged to reject it - but there a lots of way s of not being right-wing.

The main aim is to stop it getting worse.

at the moment the CO2 content of the atmosphere is going up progressively faster every year, and it needs to level off as soon as possible.

That's the silliest proposal I've come across so far. What is it supposed to about anthropogenic global warming?

There's going to be more water in the oceans when the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets slide off into the sea - worth about 10 metres of sea level rise between them - but dumping polar water in inland reservoirs isn't going to do much about that.

According to - inter alia - the Enclyopaedia Britannica (no less) the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained pretty much constant over the period between 1910 and 2009 at just under 400ppm. If that level hasn't changed during the most industrial period in human history then man-made global warming is barely even junk pseudo-science and those who espouse warmist propaganda need to be thought of in the same terms as those other nutcases who believe the world is flat and that the moon landings were faked.

There are lots of things you can troll right-wing nits into doing if you tell them left-wing politics is against it. since they have no other ideas than "if they're for it then I'm against it."

Car exhaust systems are a left-wing conspiracy, for example. If you simply cut your car's exhaust system off 2" below the header it drastically improves power output, fuel economy, and engine reliability. That muffler, catalytic converter, and tailpipe are CHOKING your engine! Just like how the left kills babies!

At some point I will see how many I can convince that the practice of using indoor toilets was invented by the Communists. Baa baa, walk to the toilet instead of using the kitchen sink like God intended, be a good little sheep.

That's a big IF. Seems you must have been reading somewhere other than Enclyopaedia Britannica.

If you just scroll down to the graph you will see levels of 320 ppm just back in 1965, not only increasing to today's level, but accelerating.

What did you read???

Yes, we can only try to salvage a bit but I agree we should do what we can to slow it down, if possible. Fossil fuels are just too easy to use.

Think of all the infrastructure we already have. Electric vehicle trucking will be good but way too late from what I understand.

Expect lots of bugs.

I just bought a house near Phoenix, AZ because global warming wasn't quite fast enough for me up here in the pacific northwest.

Lots of bugs in AZ too.

That and the fact that most people think it is a problem for others to solve.

??? What do you know of it? What bugs are you talking about? I suspect you are confusing electric vehicles and self driving vehicles.

That's one nice thing about periodic frosts. They keep the insect populations under control... well, some of them. Doesn't seem to do much for the mosquitoes and black flies in Maine though.

False.

See here:

Neither the last few years' data nor the last few decades shows any 'constant' character.

That's published research, traceable from people who did the measurements, and you don't need to trust the editors of an encyclopedia (who sit in offices and shuffle paper) when you can look at data from such sources.

You certainly can't trust a vague reference (where, exactly, IN a Britannica would one look?) posted on the internet by Cursitor D.

How would *you* possibly know? Do you possess those actual, physical, full sets of encyclopaedias? *I* do - and various others besides: Everyman's, Chambers, Odhams, Caxton and . I've been trying to obtain a set of Americanas for some time, too. Very much harder to source from the other side of the Atlantic, though. :(

Ah, I see where you went wrong now. Online sources; they cannot be trusted. It's far too easy to revise history with anything published in electronic form.

I don't doubt it. You're probably looking at that ridiculous hockey stick curve popularised by Al Bore.

I see it precisely the other way around.

Any proper set of encyclopedias has a seperate Index Volume. That's your prime starting point. Oh, but you only have online sources; what a shame.

Nothing worse than an attention-seeker with a set of crayons.

Draw your own conclusions. He has, literally.

intereswtign article

gs

You'd better post a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica article.

It happens to be wrong. The technology to measure atmospheric CO2 wasn't al l that highly developed in 1910, and there are figures for atmospheric CO2 levels from that period which are as high as 400ppm. Once Keeling had worke d out how to do it right the errors became fairly obvious.

Greenland and Antarctic ice core data make it fairly clear that the intergl acial CO2 level has been about 280 ppm for the last 800,000 years.

It had got up to 315ppm in 1958, when Keeling started doing reliable measur ements and it has been rising ever since

istory then man-made global warming is barely even junk pseudo-science and those who espouse warmist propaganda need to be thought of in the same term s as those other nutcases who believe the world is flat and that the moon l andings were faked.

Sadly for your rhetoric, it has changed and it's you who is advancing junk- pseudo-science. It's not even pseudo-science but rather self-interested lyi ng propaganda spread by people who want to keep on digging up and selling f ossil carbon as fuel despite the problems created by ever-increasing CO2 le vels in teh atmosphere.

Third-wit was in my KF for so long I forgot all about him. Then I changed newsreaders and up he crops again with a bunch of fellow, mostly-forgotten-about trolls who like to waste bandwidth here. Every newsgroup's got 'em. :(

Try the ice core data then. If you don't like the results you can drill out you own ice core and check.

First published by Mann et all in 1998

and subsequently replicated by some 24 independent studies, using other proxies for global temperature.

The denialist propaganda machine really disliked it, and used all kinds of dirty tricks to try and discredit. Cursitor Doom is gullible enough to have been suckered by them.

Of course. You are a gullible twit who seeks confirmation for his demented delusions.

If your copy of Encyclopedia Britannica is old enough it enshrines quite a few antique misconceptions.

Any news group that Cursitor Doom chooses to haunt has immediately got at least one.

I have both print and software Britannica editions, but he didn't give any reference to an article, so I consulted another reference, and cited it.

Silly to pay taxes and not use the resources made available.

So, despite the citation, you didn't read the reference? Lazy of you, in addition to silly.

Yeah, even if they insult your intelligence and rot your brain. You're the kind of person who if you lived in the UK, would be happily paying the TV licence fee and credulously devouring every apocryphal utterance of the BBC.