Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...suppose_1.html

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

This is from the character who's cross-posting with the Quaker news group, so
watch your replies.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:00:01 -0800 (PST), David wrote:

Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...suppose_1.html

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

Interesting. Of course, the amount of CO2 would be small compared to today, and
mostly from recently sequestered carbon.

The trouble with what we're doing now is that we're releasing ancient carbon,
and lots of it.

On Dec 19, 4:34*pm, Masp Erewhon wrote:
This is from the character who's cross-posting with the Quaker news group, so
watch your replies.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:00:01 -0800 (PST), David wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...lobal_warming_...

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

Interesting. Of course, the amount of CO2 would be small compared to today, and
mostly from recently sequestered carbon.

' The trouble with what we're doing now is that we're releasing
ancient carbon,
' and lots of it.

The trouble with what YOU'RE DOING, is that CO2 does not cause global
warming, and nature is based upon carbon. Carbon poses no threat which
you can identify by science. Forget your lame ass psuedo science with
no direct or ACTUAL science. Theoretical science is not science, and
is only of any use whatsoever if it is directly based upon direct
laboratory findings.

So tell us exactly. How much CO2 must we reduce and how much
temperature will this affect?

And a clear fact is that unless you genocide 3/4 of the world
population, you are not even in the f***ing BALLPARK with any
realistic program for affecting any possible effects of humans on
actual concentrations in the air.

If you can't affect concentrations in the air, you certainly have no
possiblity of mitigating your imagined global warming.

In the meantime you just wish to implement the regulatory program of
Barbra Boxer in which every aspect of Americans' lives are controlled,
calculated, and then given 'allowances' to produce CO2 as long as you
pay the tax, or 'fee'. 7 trillion dollars the politicians and
scientists wish to steal and rob from the economy.

This only reduces CO2 by economic strangulation, and this reduction in
no way can play any part in actual reductions in the atmosphere. THE
SCIENTIFIC FACT IS THERE IS NO VIABLE MEANS OF CO2 SEQUESTERATION. THE
ONLY MEANS TO REDUCE CO2 IS WITH DRASTIC DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO USE
FUEL OR ECONOMIC STRAGULATION AND GENOCIDE.

But that is fine for the greenie weenie creeps. They only wish to
impose upon the economy the factor that to produce less is best, since
this reduces CO2. Money for no production, and profit from the graft
and corruption which the regulation will bring.

And all of this for their pretense of being worried about all the
human suffering drought, and famine their imagined picture of global
warming would cause. Such noble and holy saviours.

KD

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:10:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 19, 4:34*pm, Masp Erewhon wrote:
This is from the character who's cross-posting with the Quaker news group, so
watch your replies.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:00:01 -0800 (PST), David wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...lobal_warming_...

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

Interesting. Of course, the amount of CO2 would be small compared to today, and
mostly from recently sequestered carbon.

' The trouble with what we're doing now is that we're releasing
ancient carbon,
' and lots of it.

The trouble with what YOU'RE DOING, is that CO2 does not cause global
warming,

Have you a sound argument to support this claim? Has any denier? If so, present
one. Until you do it cannot be used to premise a diatribe about how evil those
who disagree with you are.

and nature is based upon carbon.

Drinking eight glasses of water a day is good for me. Therefore, drinking eight
gallons of water a day is good for me.

Carbon poses no threat which you can identify by science.

Mainstream science does identify such a threat. Is there some other science to
which you are referring? Special science, perhaps?

Forget your lame ass psuedo science with no direct or ACTUAL science.

Oh. You mean ACTUAL science. Let me guess: the definition of ACTUAL science
would be that ACTUAL science is in agreement with your infinite wisdom?

Theoretical science is not science, and...

While "theoretical science" would be any and all science which disagrees with
your infinite wisdom--in this case, mainstream science.

...is only of any use whatsoever if it is directly based upon direct
laboratory findings.


Well, that's not true. For instance, without any laboratory, and using only the
evidence you supply in this post, I could write a paper on you.

So tell us exactly. How much CO2 must we reduce

As much as possible.

and how much temperature will this affect?

That depends on how much we reduce.


And a clear fact is that unless you genocide 3/4 of the world
population, you are not even in the f***ing BALLPARK with any
realistic program for affecting any possible effects of humans on
actual concentrations in the air.


It is brave of you to use "affect" and "effect" in the same sentence. "Brave,"
since if you prove you are not a moron, a different conclusion about your
character is forced.

Exaggerating the cost while ignoring the substantial fringe benefits of
mitigation is a particularly helpful tactic of deniers. It reveals the sort of
person with whom we are dealing.

If you can't affect concentrations in the air, you certainly have no
possiblity of mitigating your imagined global warming.


But, if global warming is imagined, we can imagine we've mitigated it.

In the meantime you just wish to implement the regulatory program of
Barbra Boxer in which every aspect of Americans' lives are controlled,
calculated, and then given 'allowances' to produce CO2 as long as you
pay the tax, or 'fee'.

You've got the attribution wrong. The master plan was actually envisioned by
Lord Satan during a wet dream of pure evil. Barbara is just a flunky, though
back in the day she might have looked hot in leather.

7 trillion dollars the politicians and
scientists wish to steal and rob from the economy.
This only reduces CO2 by economic strangulation, ...

So true. And we need that money for the bankers. Are you a banker? Perhaps you
know Lord Satan.

... and this reduction in
no way can play any part in actual reductions in the atmosphere. THE
SCIENTIFIC FACT IS THERE IS NO VIABLE MEANS OF CO2 SEQUESTERATION.

Which science are you referring to? Special science, again?

THE
ONLY MEANS TO REDUCE CO2 IS WITH DRASTIC DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO USE
FUEL OR ECONOMIC STRAGULATION AND GENOCIDE.


So, depriving you of your SUV = genocide. Neat. Whereas bombing children for oil
is what? Foreign aid?

But that is fine for the greenie weenie creeps. They only wish to
impose upon the economy the factor that to produce less is best, since
this reduces CO2. Money for no production, and profit from the graft
and corruption which the regulation will bring.


Of course, this is the only possible way mitigation could be done. People
interested in problem-solving, as opposed to erecting barriers, couldn't come up
with a pay-as-you-go plan that would maximize and front-load the fringe benefits
while minimizing the cost.

But, you might still have to give up your SUV temporarily, which would somehow
cause the deaths of millions of people, which is almost as bad, so any such plan
would be unacceptable.

And all of this for their pretense of being worried about all the
human suffering drought, and famine their imagined picture of global
warming would cause. Such noble and holy saviours.

KD


Thanks, KD, for a truly beautiful appeal to consequences, impugning of motives,
and demonization, all wrapped in a neat circular bundle: AGW must be wrong
because it would take your SUV away and that proves that "greenie weenies" are
just imagining AGW because we are evil monsters--unlike KD, who is a good person
whose SUV is vital to the peace and security of the universe--and beyond!

On Dec 20, 11:36*am, Masp Erewhon wrote:

Thanks, KD, for a truly beautiful appeal to consequences, impugning of motives,
and demonization, all wrapped in a neat circular bundle: AGW must be wrong
because it would take your SUV away and that proves that "greenie weenies" are
just imagining AGW because we are evil monsters--unlike KD, who is a good person
whose SUV is vital to the peace and security of the universe--and beyond!

Excellent example! First this AGWer complains about
"impugning of motives", then proceeds to do exactly
that (assigning the motive to kdth that kdth is
against AGW because of owning an SUV)

I have to admit, the para I quoted from the AGWer
is indeed "all wrapped in neat little circular bundle".

Masp Erewhon wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:10:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 19, 4:34Â*pm, Masp Erewhon wrote:
This is from the character who's cross-posting with the Quaker news group, so
watch your replies.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:00:01 -0800 (PST), David wrote:
Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...lobal_warming_...

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

Interesting. Of course, the amount of CO2 would be small compared to today, and
mostly from recently sequestered carbon.

' The trouble with what we're doing now is that we're releasing
ancient carbon,
' and lots of it.

The trouble with what YOU'RE DOING, is that CO2 does not cause global
warming,

Have you a sound argument to support this claim? Has any denier? If so, present
one. Until you do it cannot be used to premise a diatribe about how evil those
who disagree with you are.


It is very obvious the premise of GHGs warming the surface is
different from what GHGs do to the atmosphere.


GHGs cool the atmosphere, obviously, science is clear on this,
GHGs radiate energy in all directions, which means "half to space",
regardless of how much that energy has to ricochet around before
leaving.

When a GHG molecule radiates energy away, it absorbs energy from
N2 and O2 molecules, and radiates that energy away too.

GHGs _COOL_ the atmosphere, which is where the averaged temperatures
used to estimate the annual global average temperature are recorded.


and nature is based upon carbon.

Drinking eight glasses of water a day is good for me. Therefore, drinking eight
gallons of water a day is good for me.


Don't get weird, many people only drink a little coffee and
not much else, so too many liquids is a rare thing.

Plants do well in greenhouses when 10 times the concentration
is maintained.


Carbon poses no threat which you can identify by science.

Mainstream science does identify such a threat. Is there some other science to
which you are referring? Special science, perhaps?


What is that threat?


Forget your lame ass psuedo science with no direct or ACTUAL science.

Oh. You mean ACTUAL science. Let me guess: the definition of ACTUAL science
would be that ACTUAL science is in agreement with your infinite wisdom?


A premise can be wrong and false assumptions can be made based
on that wrong premise.

A number of such instances have occurred.


Theoretical science is not science, and...

While "theoretical science" would be any and all science which disagrees with
your infinite wisdom--in this case, mainstream science.


You have begun discussing a personality there, please don't.



...is only of any use whatsoever if it is directly based upon direct
laboratory findings.


Well, that's not true. For instance, without any laboratory, and using only the
evidence you supply in this post, I could write a paper on you.


That is what AGW goofs seem to be good at.



So tell us exactly. How much CO2 must we reduce

As much as possible.


We have no choice, fossil fuels will run out.


and how much temperature will this affect?

That depends on how much we reduce.


Unless controlled fusion power plants become common, it won't
be much very soon.


And a clear fact is that unless you genocide 3/4 of the world
population, you are not even in the f***ing BALLPARK with any
realistic program for affecting any possible effects of humans on
actual concentrations in the air.


It is brave of you to use "affect" and "effect" in the same sentence. "Brave,"
since if you prove you are not a moron, a different conclusion about your
character is forced.


Sure, all AGW adversity means something bad about the writer.



Exaggerating the cost while ignoring the substantial fringe benefits of
mitigation is a particularly helpful tactic of deniers. It reveals the sort of
person with whom we are dealing.



Nonsense, all people with a brain are clear about the advantage
of more efficient use of energy and alternate fuels that will not
run out.



If you can't affect concentrations in the air, you certainly have no
possiblity of mitigating your imagined global warming.


But, if global warming is imagined, we can imagine we've mitigated it.


The weather will convince you one way or the other within 5 years.



In the meantime you just wish to implement the regulatory program of
Barbra Boxer in which every aspect of Americans' lives are controlled,
calculated, and then given 'allowances' to produce CO2 as long as you
pay the tax, or 'fee'.

You've got the attribution wrong. The master plan was actually envisioned by
Lord Satan during
[SNIP]


The usual foul mouth sarcasm of AGW goofs is well documented,
more is not needed.


Too bad AGW goofs aren't able to discuss the science.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:28:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 20, 11:36*am, Masp Erewhon wrote:

Thanks, KD, for a truly beautiful appeal to consequences, impugning of motives,
and demonization, all wrapped in a neat circular bundle: AGW must be wrong
because it would take your SUV away and that proves that "greenie weenies" are
just imagining AGW because we are evil monsters--unlike KD, who is a good person
whose SUV is vital to the peace and security of the universe--and beyond!

Excellent example! First this AGWer complains about
"impugning of motives", then proceeds to do exactly
that (assigning the motive to kdth that kdth is
against AGW because of owning an SUV)

I have to admit, the para I quoted from the AGWer
is indeed "all wrapped in neat little circular bundle".


Stripping a conclusion from the argument which justified it certainly makes it
easier to attack, but at the cost of revealing one of two things about the
attacker:

If you understand that it is invalid to attack only the conclusion of an
argument, and chose to do so anyway, then you are dishonest.

Otherwise, you think it's OK to judge an argument by its conclusion. Such is the
lazy-minded habit of a chronic rationalizer. Everyone rationalizes sometimes,
but chronic rationalizers rarely do anything else. To them, the conclusion is
the only part of an argument that ever matters. An argument is "good" if the
conclusion enables gratification, "bad" if it does not.

It is not surprising that a denier would be a chronic rationalizer.

KD's post assumes as given that GHG theory is wrong (begging the question), and
then attacks everyone who believes otherwise as evil.

Or it is possible that "GHG theory is wrong" is the conclusion KD wants to prove
by what follows, i.e., "GHG theory is wrong /because/ those who think otherwise
are evil." That would be classic ad hominem, abusive.

Either way, my verdict regarding KD's character is supported by his words.
Motive is not part of the corpus delicti of a crime and need not be proved. The
SUV is only a symbol for whatever it is that matters more to a denier than truth
or the well-being of his children: presumably, the gratification of a swinish
whim.

On Dec 23, 8:50*am, Masp Erewhon wrote:
Excellent example! *First this AGWer complains about
"impugning of motives", then proceeds to do exactly
that (assigning the motive to kdth that kdth is
against AGW because of owning an SUV)

I have to admit, the para I quoted from the AGWer
is indeed "all wrapped in neat little circular bundle".

Stripping a conclusion from the argument which justified it certainly makes it
easier to attack, but at the cost of revealing one of two things about the
attacker:

You are not making much sense.

Then again, I don't expect you to -- you are the guy
who can claim with a straight 2.5 million/year is enough
for a worldwide denialist conspiracy, and it is
all a matter of "personal incredulity", nothing
to do with facts and mathematics.

So no wonder you would make more arguments
of that nature. Crooks tend to be, I guess, crooked...

On Dec 23, 8:58*am, wrote:
who can claim with a straight 2.5 million/year is enough

with a straight [face]

Btw, Union of Concerned Scientists alone makes
comparably money to ALL the funding for deniers.
So clearly, it knew that what it wrote was a
fraudulent attempt to take contributions
on false pretense. [I assume as well as Masp
Erewhon knows that all his arguments are
false pretenses.]

The fact that Union of Concerned Scientists continues
to have many members, proves that modern scientists in
general tend to have little thoughts of and concern
about morality of any kind.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:58:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 23, 8:50*am, Masp Erewhon wrote:
Excellent example! *First this AGWer complains about
"impugning of motives", then proceeds to do exactly
that (assigning the motive to kdth that kdth is
against AGW because of owning an SUV)

I have to admit, the para I quoted from the AGWer
is indeed "all wrapped in neat little circular bundle".

Stripping a conclusion from the argument which justified it certainly makes it
easier to attack, but at the cost of revealing one of two things about the
attacker:

You are not making much sense.


Well, let's restore a little more of what I actually said, and see if that
helps:

Stripping a conclusion from the argument which justified it certainly makes it
easier to attack, but at the cost of revealing one of two things about the
attacker:

If you understand that it is invalid to attack only the conclusion of an
argument, and chose to do so anyway, then you are dishonest.

Otherwise, you think it's OK to judge an argument by its conclusion. Such is the
lazy-minded habit of a chronic rationalizer. Everyone rationalizes sometimes,
but chronic rationalizers rarely do anything else. To them, the conclusion is
the only part of an argument that ever matters. An argument is "good" if the
conclusion enables gratification, "bad" if it does not.




You are not making much sense.


I held up a mirror and you had a psychotic break. Understandable.

Then again, I don't expect you to -- you are the guy
who can claim with a straight 2.5 million/year is enough
for a worldwide denialist conspiracy,

So, how much are they paying you?

and it is
all a matter of "personal incredulity", nothing
to do with facts and mathematics.

According to your math, how much should it cost? Show your work.


So no wonder you would make more arguments
of that nature. Crooks tend to be, I guess, crooked...

Yes, they do. And deniers tend to project.