Monday, November 5, 2007


Fiery opens with Mother Nature: the World's Biggest Polluter

T&A counters with Do Volcanoes Cause Global Warming?

Reg Golb's riposte Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
and There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming

Richard enters the fray with 19,000 Scientists sign Global Warming Petition and Termite Farts


Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

First: The source of this is Rush Limpdick. Second: Volcanos emit over 130 million tons of CO2 , while humans emitted more than 27 billion tons of CO2. in 2005 alone.

Reg Golb said...

So you should start a multilevel marketing company and sell beano.

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

Good one Reg! :)

I suppose I should have wrote human
industrial output emitted 27 billion tons.

Reg Golb said...

No, just stick with the "lay persons perspective" concept when it comes to science.

Reg Golb said...

A better question is "Is there global warming?"



Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

Reg why are you such a dick?

Reg Golb said...

Is that step seven in your scientific method. Get everyone to agree that I am a dick. Well that is exactly what your Priest Algore did with anthropomorphic climate change.

Did you ever ask youself, If the world is 4 billion plus years old, what is normal? No, well you were probably busy cutting off you sleeves.

Johnny said...

hahahahahahaha Glob's on a roll!!!

Richard said...

If you note the temperature shifts on the graphs on T&A's site you will see that they are all within a range of about one degree Celsius. It's piddlingly small, a bees fart in a hurricane. Climate changes. Always has. Always will.

What temperature would you like the Global Average to be kept to? How do you know you have the right temperature --have you a phone line to God? How many deaths and injuries from lighter thinner automobiles (to reduce CO2 emissions) is the right number? How many human livelihoods should be proscribed or eliminated by environmental regulation (fascism) in order to keep that average? Billions of confiscated dollars have already been taken from people for Global Warming research. Money taken from people who have their own much more valid uses for their portion.

So what if computer models copy the temperature changes (questionably) observed. That copying is a function of what the designers decide to put into them. It's what modeling is! Having worked beside a computer modeling team, the common discussion was that the models are not science, are not evidence, and only reflect what the team thinks. Efforts to use real world data in the models do nothing whatsoever to make model projections meaningful, in the sense of real world cause and effect. The models are only useful as a suggestion for further research. The Global Warmers repeatedly treat them as scientific proof.

Man's industrial emissions only constitute 2% of the earth's greenhouse gases. Do you really think we can change global CLIMATE by altering our lives, or by being forced to, when we cannot influence 98% of those gases?

What's more, an increase in CO2 is likely to benefit Nature and Mankind. At present day levels of CO2 most plants are struggling to extract it from the atmosphere. Several studies have shown, unequivocally, that crops would double their output with a mere doubling of CO2... from about .03% to .06% of the atmosphere. Present levels are approaching .04%. Yep, a mere change of 0.01% is what they are getting all worked up about. (Chicken Little reigns.) 27 billion tones of CO2 is a drop in the bucket, and will most likely help the environment. Nonetheless the Watermelons want to stop it, and stop human progress in the process!

So what, if the global average temperature (a flatly impossible thing to calculate) increases by even 4 degrees Celsius. Why should that spell catastrophe? It will take generations to get there. People will naturally make their own choices about where to live and what they want to be exposed to. They always have and always will, and should be free enough, and have resources enough, to do so. Yet the Watermelon Environmentalists want to diminish their capacity to do that very thing.

Melting ice caps? Bah humbug. The Antarctic ice cap has been steadily growing at an unusually high rate, and so have others. Mt. Kilomanjaro's ice cap did not melt, it sublimated because of several years where the cooler months were dry. And so what if its gone... is there a rule that says it should have an icecap? The Greens are arrogant enough to think they can make that rule, for you! Where glaciers have retreated substantially mineralogists are finding new resources that could not previously be reached. Great!

The biggest bugaboos are appreciating cosmological factors and recognizing essential factors in the issue:

The sun's output fluctuations, the Earth's changing orbit and precession (wobbling on its axis of spin) alter global climate considerably. It has recently been demonstrated that cosmic radiation, from outside the solar system, dramatically affects the Earths cloud cover, influencing Earth's albedo (reflectivity) and therefore 'average' temperature. Note, those factors vastly outweigh anything humans can do.

The recognition of essentials lies in a shockingly simple fact that modelers and 2,500 IPCC scientists (quite a few wish they were not on the list) ignore. Over hundreds of millions of years temperature consistently rises before CO2 levels rise. This is completely opposite to the simplistic cause & effect relationship the Global Warmers routinely claim. It is such an essential fact that it negates every other argument suggesting CO2 is a climate issue.

Did you know that the 2,500 attendees of the IPCC are not a true consensus, because they were merely listed because they attended. They never signed on. If you wish to see a listing of 19,000 (!) scientists who did sign on go to the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine. The signers were also required to attest to their scientific credentials.

Regardless of the scientific facts that prove or disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming, there is no rational reason for those facts to be used by Watermelon Environmentalists to impose lifestyle changes on individuals. Our survival is not theirs to decide.

Man SHOULD use the Earth, just as every living organism has and does. If a group likes some area of rain forest or tundra they can buy it up. If they decide to sell, e.g., the oil rights on that land, let them. They may use the money to buy more tundra, and someone else will benefit from the oil. Either way, it is none of YOUR legislative business.

Richard said...

Speaking of Beano, I forgot to mention termites:
"The global emissions of methane and carbon dioxide are 19.7 +/- 1.5 and 3500 +/- 700 Mt/yr respectively (1 Mt = 10^12 g). These emissions contribute approximately 4% and 2%, respectively, to the total global fluxes of these gases."

That's somewhere between 2,800,000 & 4,200,000 tonnes of CO2, just from termites.

Then there are all the ruminants passing methane and CO2. Unfortunately, world wide numbers are unavailable. Of course, lots of studies look at emissions from ruminants used by humans. The motivation is clear... hamper human activity by focusing on human sources of CO2 and disregarding 'natural' sources.

Probably the greatest producers of CO2 and methane are terrestrial and aquatic bacteria, but environmentalist researchers are not interested.

Give them ALL Beano; it'll cut back on the hot air.

Richard said...


I call Algore, "The Goron".

Are you aware of the notion of "worshiping Creation, not the Creator". Environmentalism is a religion of that kind. It subordinates Mankind to Spotted Newts, moss, rocks (The Niagara Escarpment) and fictional Spotted Owls. The Goron has sought to position himself as the Pope of the Environment.

Like the Pope, The Goron seeks the adoration and 'hearts' (a euphemism for souls)of his flock of believers. He too toys with facts, claiming reason (Gore has written a fraudulent book on the subject.) while appealing to the ignorance of his congregation.

I do not mean ignorance entirely in the sense of stupidity. Like many religious believers, the majority want to do what is good and right, but have not the means, reasoning skills and knowledge to make more thorough judgments.

In fifty years The Goron will be, like Trofim Lysenko in Russia, a passing note of ridicule in history. Lysenko imposed (through Stalin) a faulty view of animal evolution (known as Lamarckism) that set back Russian biology by at least fifty years. The Goron will do much more harm, probably on a world wide scale, if Environmentalism gains true political dominance.

Reg Golb said...

Amen, preach it brother.

For atheistink, it is an example of ignorance. But now that he knows the reality, he has no excuse.

Recycling cans is great, taking beano is greater, becoming educated about the lie of global warming is the greatest. (a play of Keith O, which happens to be his IQ) I couldn't resist taking a shot after the Rush comment.

By the way atheistink, what is wrong with Rush? besides your knowledge of his apparent problem with ED?

Richard said...

Glob, you're being a jerk.

There is no content in your comment.

And I strongly resent,
Amen, preach it brother.
Buzz off.

I can, for the sake of fiery's awesome blog visitors, make a constructive point about cans.

A pop can is worth about 1/10th of a cent. If it takes one second longer to put a pop can in a recycling bin (including the time taken to take the extra bin to the sidewalk) then in a minute one can recycle 60 cans for 6 cents. In an hour, that amounts to 60 x 6 = 360 cents. $3.60 is what, half of minimum wage?

Now consider 330 million Americans, almost none of whom are worth as little as 1/2 of minimum wage at whatever work they do.

To recycle pop cans, the abject waste of man power is worth ~300x10^6 x $3.60 = $1,080,000,000 wasted recycling an hour's worth of cans each.

A billion bucks, to recycle iron on a planet where iron can be bucketed from its crust and converted into a new can for half that cost! On a planet that is basically a great big ball of iron (the inner core is almost 100% iron, but there are enormous amounts of iron in the outer core and the mantle).

The same argument exists for recycling glass, because the primary ingredient, silica, is more abundant in the crust than is iron. Recycling these compounds is profoundly stupid. (Copper is another matter.) Taxpayers should not have their property (dollars) confiscated for such nonsense.

Reg Golb said...

Ok, sorry sir. I was just kidding, we actually agreed about something so I thought I would be silly. Never happen again. Only serious, only one topic.

What cans are you talking about, I though we were referring to aluminium

Tattooed & Atheist (T&A) said...

Richard: Are you talking about iron or aluminum? I do hope you realize they are two separate metals.

As far as your argument about recycling aluminum is concerned, recycling aluminum cans requires less than 5-10 percent of the energy required to produce aluminum from bauxite. Nearly all of the bauxite that is used in the manufacturing of aluminum is imported into the US.
So it's not as simple as scooping up a shovel full of earth to get aluminum. It cost a lot of time and energy to mine bauxite. Far more than it does to recycle the cans in already in existence.

Richard said...

Hi T&A,

I am, of course, speaking of cans made of coated steel. However, a law was passed in Canada, and I believe the U.S. that required the use of aluminum (for its recycling value) in pop cans. Now just the tops and bottoms of pop cans are made with aluminum.

Thus the aluminum content changes the numbers somewhat, but if there were *real* value in recycling the aluminum then there would be individuals (including corporations) who would seek the cans as a value, just as waste copper is sought.

Bottom line: pop cans are not worth the effort, as against the cost of obtaining more bauxite.