Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.

Expand Messages
  • lasallia
    I don t disagree with anything you say here ... however ... 1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other aspects of the controlled conditions,
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't disagree with anything you say here ... however ...

      1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other aspects of
      the controlled conditions, like more water and more nutrients. There
      are 'rules' of limiting factors that affect plant growth. I have
      given plants extra CO2 in a controlled environment and have seen
      firsthand what happens when you boost growth without providing the
      extra water necessary. It's all in the photosynthesis equation.

      2) We did not have our current agricultural systems in place when
      atmospheric CO2 was 500 times its current level.

      3) Out of control weather events, which are affected by energy
      (heat) in the atmosphere do cause injury and death. More CO2 means
      more heat trapped (that whole greenhouse effect thing that keeps us
      alive). Now, I know we could adjust to climate change, but we have a
      very large population to feed and find room for if the scenarios of
      drought and sea level rise come to pass, even without the extreme
      event of the Gulf Stream cutting off and plunging the north into
      another ice age.

      Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would it
      be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
      energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of higher
      CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the risk?"

      What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of profit for
      the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?



      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
      wrote:
      > Of course I can see the logic of taking overdoses of anything. I do
      fail to see how this relates to CO2, however. Earth has had
      > several percentage points (500 times) more CO2 than now, and it has
      varied up and down from current levels. It is vital to life, and
      > is injected into greenhouses to assist plant growth. I'm unaware of
      any precautions that workers need take, however. CO2 is not a
      > poison or a pollutant. It can, however, displace oxygen, so if a
      high concentration of CO2 occurs in a closed space, the
      > displacement of oxygen could result in injury or death.
      >
      > John
      >
    • John Shotsky
      If heat was being trapped, particularly in the atmosphere, it could be measured. Heat is not being trapped, that s why balloons
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        <CO2 means more heat trapped>

        If heat was being trapped, particularly in the atmosphere, it could be measured. Heat is not being trapped, that's why balloons and
        satellite measuring systems cannot detect this fictitious additional heat. It is the most basic reason why the theory of the
        enhanced greenhouse effect is bogus, along with all the claims of global warming caused by increases in CO2.

        For Pete's sake, CO2 has increased by almost 1/3!! Where's the response from the atmosphere? Most of it is on the ground, where it
        is generated by us, and trapped in our architectures. Today's heat waves are no different than those of the 30's, when CO2 was
        substantially lower than today. What's the connection? There isn't one. Heat waves are weather, and weather can hit extremes
        anytime.

        All weather events are 'out of control', except the minor cloud seeding efforts. Climate has always been changing, and living
        things on earth have always adapted or died. That goes for the future as well. It could get substantially warmer, or substantially
        colder than now. Seeing as we are in the middle of a warm period, I wouldn't be too heavily on it getting warmer...

        John
        _____

        From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
        To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.


        I don't disagree with anything you say here ... however ...

        1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other aspects of
        the controlled conditions, like more water and more nutrients. There
        are 'rules' of limiting factors that affect plant growth. I have
        given plants extra CO2 in a controlled environment and have seen
        firsthand what happens when you boost growth without providing the
        extra water necessary. It's all in the photosynthesis equation.

        2) We did not have our current agricultural systems in place when
        atmospheric CO2 was 500 times its current level.

        3) Out of control weather events, which are affected by energy
        (heat) in the atmosphere do cause injury and death. More CO2 means
        more heat trapped (that whole greenhouse effect thing that keeps us
        alive). Now, I know we could adjust to climate change, but we have a
        very large population to feed and find room for if the scenarios of
        drought and sea level rise come to pass, even without the extreme
        event of the Gulf Stream cutting off and plunging the north into
        another ice age.

        Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would it
        be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
        energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of higher
        CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the risk?"

        What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of profit for
        the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?



        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
        wrote:
        > Of course I can see the logic of taking overdoses of anything. I do
        fail to see how this relates to CO2, however. Earth has had
        > several percentage points (500 times) more CO2 than now, and it has
        varied up and down from current levels. It is vital to life, and
        > is injected into greenhouses to assist plant growth. I'm unaware of
        any precautions that workers need take, however. CO2 is not a
        > poison or a pollutant. It can, however, displace oxygen, so if a
        high concentration of CO2 occurs in a closed space, the
        > displacement of oxygen could result in injury or death.
        >
        > John
        >




        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

        ADVERTISEMENT

        <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705948926:HM/A=1693352/R=0/SIG=11tralmvc/*http://www.netflix.co
        m/Default?mqso=60178293&partid=3170658> click here
        <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693352/rand=296993253>

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • lasallia
        Is there any point in giving you some hard facts about the heat anomalies both on land and in the ocean? You have some explanation for these, no doubt.
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Is there any point in giving you some hard facts about the heat
          anomalies both on land and in the ocean? You have some explanation
          for these, no doubt. Natural cycles, sun spot activity ... that kind
          of thing?




          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
          wrote:
          > <CO2 means more heat trapped>
          >
          > If heat was being trapped, particularly in the atmosphere, it could
          be measured. Heat is not being trapped, that's why balloons and
          > satellite measuring systems cannot detect this fictitious
          additional heat. It is the most basic reason why the theory of the
          > enhanced greenhouse effect is bogus, along with all the claims of
          global warming caused by increases in CO2.
          >
          > For Pete's sake, CO2 has increased by almost 1/3!! Where's the
          response from the atmosphere? Most of it is on the ground, where it
          > is generated by us, and trapped in our architectures. Today's heat
          waves are no different than those of the 30's, when CO2 was
          > substantially lower than today. What's the connection? There isn't
          one. Heat waves are weather, and weather can hit extremes
          > anytime.
          >
          > All weather events are 'out of control', except the minor cloud
          seeding efforts. Climate has always been changing, and living
          > things on earth have always adapted or died. That goes for the
          future as well. It could get substantially warmer, or substantially
          > colder than now. Seeing as we are in the middle of a warm period, I
          wouldn't be too heavily on it getting warmer...
          >
          > John
          > _____
          >
          > From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
          > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
          > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.
          >
          >
          > I don't disagree with anything you say here ... however ...
          >
          > 1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other aspects
          of
          > the controlled conditions, like more water and more nutrients.
          There
          > are 'rules' of limiting factors that affect plant growth. I have
          > given plants extra CO2 in a controlled environment and have seen
          > firsthand what happens when you boost growth without providing the
          > extra water necessary. It's all in the photosynthesis equation.
          >
          > 2) We did not have our current agricultural systems in place when
          > atmospheric CO2 was 500 times its current level.
          >
          > 3) Out of control weather events, which are affected by energy
          > (heat) in the atmosphere do cause injury and death. More CO2 means
          > more heat trapped (that whole greenhouse effect thing that keeps us
          > alive). Now, I know we could adjust to climate change, but we have
          a
          > very large population to feed and find room for if the scenarios of
          > drought and sea level rise come to pass, even without the extreme
          > event of the Gulf Stream cutting off and plunging the north into
          > another ice age.
          >
          > Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would it
          > be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
          > energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of
          higher
          > CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the risk?"
          >
          > What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of profit
          for
          > the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
          <shotsky1@h...>
          > wrote:
          > > Of course I can see the logic of taking overdoses of anything. I
          do
          > fail to see how this relates to CO2, however. Earth has had
          > > several percentage points (500 times) more CO2 than now, and it
          has
          > varied up and down from current levels. It is vital to life, and
          > > is injected into greenhouses to assist plant growth. I'm unaware
          of
          > any precautions that workers need take, however. CO2 is not a
          > > poison or a pollutant. It can, however, displace oxygen, so if a
          > high concentration of CO2 occurs in a closed space, the
          > > displacement of oxygen could result in injury or death.
          > >
          > > John
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
          05948926:HM/A=1693352/R=0/SIG=11tralmvc/*http://www.netflix.co
          > m/Default?mqso=60178293&partid=3170658> click here
          > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
          M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693352/rand=296
          993253>
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
          <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • F Cote
          ... it be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing ... higher CO2 will, but the question I would ask is Is it worth the risk? What do you
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:

            > Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would
            it be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
            > energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of
            higher CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the
            risk?" What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of
            profit for the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?
            >
            >

            Herein, the crux of the problem. Do we have a choice, in fact? If
            profit for the few is God what can you hope to do? You are Saint
            Paul tilting at the Roman Imperial power..

            Things will not change, cannot change, unless and until enough
            people (in the right places, geographically) suffer enough from the
            various ecological disasters taking place today.

            These include

            - non-renewable resource depletion without satisfactory substitution
            strategy

            - non-sustainable renewable resource management which stupidly
            converts renewables into depleting non-renewables (ocean
            fisheries for example)

            - overpopulation pressures

            - habitat destruction and fragmentation

            - various pollutant effects on health and agricultural output

            - species extinction

            - possible\probable GW and climate change

            - synergistic geopolitical, economic and social chaos resulting from
            the interactions of the above

            It is obvious that the current pace of change, while real, is
            insufficient. 'A new alliance' between man and nature is needed, a
            symbiosis rather than a pillage. Such a notion is totally at
            loggerheads with the de facto ideologies in place (captitalism and,
            until recently, marxian socialism). It is difficult to see how such
            a massive change in consciousness and collective values could occur
            in any meaningful time frame. The U.N., for example, is predicting
            population (global) should peak out at 8.9 Billion in this century.

            8.9 Billion? With the technologies and resource 'management
            strategies' currently employed? The folly of such a
            development 'strategy' is, I think, evident to any thinking person
            upon reflection. Current ecologically destructive practices and
            technology will be employed more intensively for two reasons: 1-
            population increase and 2- they will also have to be employed more
            intensively on a per capita basis in order to close the gap in
            living standard between poor and rich. Otherwise, the escalating
            conflicts between rich and poor threaten to worsen, absorbing public
            monies (which neoliberal bean cutters claim to want to cut) and
            suppressing civil rights in a futile attempt to achieve security
            without equity. No, I don't think so. I'll pass on that option,
            thank you..

            Yet GW - 'if it exists' - is only one facet of the current misfit
            between society and ecology. The conclusion is hard to avoid: Things
            will have to get worse before they get better..

            The 'system' is probably stressed out already. For example, I
            note that the latest U.N. population projection is down .4 billion
            from last time. This is good BUT at least half that drop is due, not
            to family planning, but to one Ma Nature's Birth Control Methods,
            Plague; AIDS in Africa is the biggest factor in the latest drop in
            projected population!!! Lots of food for thought there, I think.

            Against fact and logic we have platitudes (ideology) and good
            intentions..

            And that is sufficient. The public still buys it. And will
            continue to do so until they can no longer.
          • lasallia
            ... Personally speaking, I exercise a few choices. I use as little energy as possible directly, and buy as much as I can secondhand rather than new, thus
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              > Herein, the crux of the problem. Do we have a choice, in fact?

              Personally speaking, I exercise a few choices. I use as little
              energy as possible directly, and buy as much as I can secondhand
              rather than new, thus extending a product's lifetime. If
              circumstances allowed it I would opt for solar energy, which my
              parents in the south of England are already using. I think we do
              have a choice. In what we buy and in what we buy into. There is no
              corporation so powerful that it does not rely on Joe Public. Even
              the corporate run US government.

              >If profit for the few is God what can you hope to do? You are Saint
              > Paul tilting at the Roman Imperial power..

              Good job they don't throw people to the lions anymore ... between
              that and being burnt at the stake I'd be thoroughly miserable.
              >
              > Things will not change, cannot change, unless and until enough
              > people (in the right places, geographically) suffer enough from the
              > various ecological disasters taking place today.

              I'm not sure I'd be able to agree with you there ... on the grounds
              that once you are suffering it's too late to change. There's that
              thing about the environment being for those who can afford it. Then
              you have the environmental equity situation. China's pollution
              provides cheap goods for the rest of us.

              > The 'system' is probably stressed out already. For example, I
              > note that the latest U.N. population projection is down .4 billion
              > from last time. This is good BUT at least half that drop is due,
              not to family planning, but to one Ma Nature's Birth Control Methods,
              > Plague; AIDS in Africa is the biggest factor in the latest drop in
              > projected population!!! Lots of food for thought there, I think.

              I wonder how much could be due to endocrine disruption.

              >Against fact and logic we have platitudes (ideology) and good
              > intentions.. And that is sufficient. The public still buys it. And
              will continue to do so until they can no longer.

              Then what will they do?
            • F Cote
              ... no ... I certainly agree that we have personal choices. I am with you on this. I conserve energy. Example: using a downward facing fan to recycle hot
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > > Herein, the crux of the problem. Do we have a choice, in fact?
                >
                > Personally speaking, I exercise a few choices. I use as little
                > energy as possible directly, and buy as much as I can secondhand
                > rather than new, thus extending a product's lifetime. If
                > circumstances allowed it I would opt for solar energy, which my
                > parents in the south of England are already using. I think we do
                > have a choice. In what we buy and in what we buy into. There is
                no
                > corporation so powerful that it does not rely on Joe Public. Even
                > the corporate run US government.

                I certainly agree that we have personal choices. I am with you on
                this. I conserve energy. Example: using a downward facing fan to
                recycle hot ceiling air. This trick can result in 15% reduction in
                heating bills even taking the electrical energy required for the
                motor into account. I make the max use of passive solar energy,
                reduce indoor air temperature in cool weather (and dehumidify to
                avoid claminess which allows a further reduction in thermostat
                setting), etc. In my original posting I was speaking of collective,
                social choices. An example would be a federal carbon tax whose
                revenues could be used as seed money to stimulate research and
                marketing of renewable energy.
                >
                > >If profit for the few is God what can you hope to do? You are
                Saint
                > > Paul tilting at the Roman Imperial power..
                >
                > Good job they don't throw people to the lions anymore ... between
                > that and being burnt at the stake I'd be thoroughly miserable.

                YES, BUT.. they are subject to downstream pollution effects (air or
                water borne). Does that count? ; ) ; )
                > >
                > > Things will not change, cannot change, unless and until enough
                > > people (in the right places, geographically) suffer enough from
                the
                > > various ecological disasters taking place today.
                >
                > I'm not sure I'd be able to agree with you there ... on the grounds
                > that once you are suffering it's too late to change. There's that
                > thing about the environment being for those who can afford it.
                Then
                > you have the environmental equity situation. China's pollution
                > provides cheap goods for the rest of us.

                Maybe you are right, it is quite possible in fact.It may indeed be
                too late to slam on the brakes and change direction once people begin
                to drop like flies but, again, I really do not see much of an
                alternative. The present rate of re-conversion to a renewable
                resource and energy base - while laudable - is taking too much time.
                We should have been where we are now back in the early 1970's. We
                have lost 30 years of precious lead-time in development.

                I think the summer in W. Europe was merely a wake up call
                (15,000 "supplementary deaths" in France, Italy, Portugal and Spain -
                from the news services. I have not searched for data on other
                countries.)

                Exportable pollution is of course a big problem: out of sight, out of
                mind, the curse of the NIMBY. :( "One" rationalizes the problem with
                feel-good platitudes: the Chinese are better off, we say, with
                development even if there are "associated" (= externalized) costs in
                terms of pollution and health problems. If one is sophisticated, one
                can bolster this argument with stats by showing that, yes indeed, the
                Chinese live longer, weigh more, have lower infant and child
                mortality, etc. Ignored is the unsustainability of the development in
                question..
                >
                > > The 'system' is probably stressed out already. For example, I
                > > note that the latest U.N. population projection is down .4
                billion
                > > from last time. This is good BUT at least half that drop is due,
                > not to family planning, but to one Ma Nature's Birth Control
                Methods,
                > > Plague; AIDS in Africa is the biggest factor in the latest drop
                in
                > > projected population!!! Lots of food for thought there, I think.
                >
                > I wonder how much could be due to endocrine disruption.

                Since the 1960s fertility has become an increasing problem for
                married couples in industrial societies. Some data, still contested
                perhaps, suggests that sperm counts are down in men. This is logical
                in the sense that a lot of halogen containing pollutants act like
                female hormones (xenoestrogens or "foreign estrogen-like agents"). I
                do not know if a cause-effect link has yet been established between
                rising infertility rates and xenoestrogens. The last time I reviewed
                the evidence, several years back, I recall it being noted that the
                majority of genital deformations noted in wildlife did, in fact,
                involve the feminization of males (fish, for example).

                >
                > >Against fact and logic we have platitudes (ideology) and good
                > > intentions.. And that is sufficient. The public still buys it.
                And
                > will continue to do so until they can no longer.
                >
                > Then what will they do?

                AH! That's when things get interesting. ; )
                The Chinese have an ancient curse, "May you live in interesting
                times!", that is, in times interesting to future historians, not the
                poor devils actually living in them. : (
                Times of transition (whether for the better or not) tend to be
                chaotic and "contingent", unpredictable. What happens once the bubble
                bursts is anyone's guess. So my best answer to your question
                is, "they will behave chaotically" (in all the senses that word is
                used today, not all negative..) ; ) ; (
              • lasallia
                ... posting I was speaking of collective, social choices. An example would be a federal carbon tax whose revenues could be used as seed money to stimulate
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I certainly agree that we have personal choices. In my original
                  posting I was speaking of collective, social choices. An example
                  would be a federal carbon tax whose revenues could be used as seed
                  money to stimulate research and marketing of renewable energy.

                  So our collective social choice would be to vote for the government
                  that implemented such a tax. Hmmm. I'm not sure. Sometimes it
                  doesn't seem to matter what the people think, the party line
                  being, 'What do they know?'

                  > YES, BUT.. they are subject to downstream pollution effects (air or
                  > water borne). Does that count? ; ) ; )

                  In a country with private medical care? I think probably not.

                  Maybe you are right, it is quite possible in fact.It may indeed be
                  > too late to slam on the brakes and change direction once people
                  begin to drop like flies but, again, I really do not see much of an
                  > alternative. The present rate of re-conversion to a renewable
                  > resource and energy base - while laudable - is taking too much
                  time. We should have been where we are now back in the early 1970's.
                  We have lost 30 years of precious lead-time in development.

                  Yes, although I'm not sure this is true globally. In many European
                  countries renewable energy is being taken very seriously. The French
                  use a lot of nuclear energy (not that I particularly agree with that
                  method of production either), and David's scathing introduction to
                  the cutting about air pollution (Go, Kyoto, go) somehow neglected to
                  mention that this was not a common problem and that the French
                  authorities were talking about measures like making inner cities car
                  free.

                  > I think the summer in W. Europe was merely a wake up call
                  > (15,000 "supplementary deaths" in France, Italy, Portugal and
                  Spain - from the news services. I have not searched for data on other
                  > countries.)

                  I think Europe is wide awake, it is the US that needs the call and
                  the reaction I have heard about the situation tends to be along the
                  lines of 'Well, they were old', or 'Who cares about the French?'

                  > Exportable pollution is of course a big problem: out of sight, out
                  of mind, the curse of the NIMBY. :( "One" rationalizes the problem
                  with feel-good platitudes: the Chinese are better off, we say, with
                  > development even if there are "associated" (= externalized) costs
                  in terms of pollution and health problems. If one is sophisticated,
                  one can bolster this argument with stats by showing that, yes indeed,
                  the Chinese live longer, weigh more, have lower infant and child
                  > mortality, etc. Ignored is the unsustainability of the development
                  in question..

                  Isn't the infant mortality rate falling in most places, except
                  perhaps Africa. Aren't the Chinese having fewer children? Not that
                  this, in itself, would make the rate lower but it would reduce
                  crowding and allow more food and care per child perhaps.

                  > Since the 1960s fertility has become an increasing problem for
                  > married couples in industrial societies. Some data, still contested
                  > perhaps, suggests that sperm counts are down in men. This is
                  logical in the sense that a lot of halogen containing pollutants act
                  like female hormones (xenoestrogens or "foreign estrogen-like
                  agents"). I do not know if a cause-effect link has yet been
                  established between rising infertility rates and xenoestrogens. The
                  last time I reviewed the evidence, several years back, I recall it
                  being noted that the majority of genital deformations noted in
                  wildlife did, in fact, involve the feminization of males (fish, for
                  example).

                  May I recommend Deborah Cadbury's 'Altering Eden: the feminisation of
                  nature'? Associated problems are rising rates of testicular and
                  prostate cancer. Sorry, off topic here for a moment or two, but I
                  think it's something people should know about.

                  > AH! That's when things get interesting. ; )
                  > The Chinese have an ancient curse, "May you live in interesting
                  > times!", that is, in times interesting to future historians, not
                  the poor devils actually living in them. : (
                  > Times of transition (whether for the better or not) tend to be
                  > chaotic and "contingent", unpredictable. What happens once the
                  bubble bursts is anyone's guess. So my best answer to your question
                  > is, "they will behave chaotically" (in all the senses that word is
                  > used today, not all negative..) ; ) ; (

                  And we do live in interesting times. I have heard more than one
                  person say that they hope they live long enough to see some of the
                  effects of climate change. How did you describe it recently?
                  Intellectual curiousity or something like that. We are like kids in
                  a war zone ... watching the bombs fall and saying 'wow' when they get
                  a bit close. This sounds callous, I know, but is not meant in that
                  way.
                • liberty1776_2000
                  John, You ve a lot of misunderstandings of basic physics and climatology. The expected net effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is to trap heat near the
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    John,

                    You've a lot of misunderstandings of basic physics and climatology.

                    The expected net effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is to trap heat
                    near the earth's surface heating the lower atmosphere and cooling the
                    upper atmosphere. There's also a cooling of the upper atmosphere due
                    to depletion of ozone. The observed trends in atmospheric
                    temperature profile are consistent with the climate models.

                    The heat trapped has been measured globaly over time spans of years
                    to centuries via microwave sounding, weather stations, ballons,
                    aircraft, boreholes, oceanic sensors, tree rings, timing of budding,
                    permafrost records, ... from the bottom of the ocean to the top of
                    ionosphere the earth's climate system is responding as though the
                    dominant climate driver is now the increase in carbon dioxide.
                    That's why the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has
                    been making statements warning about the risks of running a global
                    climate experiment. Those suggesting that we can ignore the risks of
                    the global climate experiment are roughly on par with advocates of
                    homeopathic medicine and cold fusion. They make a lot of noise, they
                    occassionaly manage to meet the standards for scientific publication,
                    they waste time on irrelevant BS like arguing that CO2 isn't a
                    poison, and they rarely if ever produce anything useful.

                    Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related
                    Sciences
                    (Adopted by AMS Council on 9 February 2003)
                    Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515
                    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

                    Ken



                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                    wrote:
                    > <CO2 means more heat trapped>
                    >
                    > If heat was being trapped, particularly in the atmosphere, it could
                    be measured. Heat is not being trapped, that's why balloons and
                    > satellite measuring systems cannot detect this fictitious
                    additional heat. It is the most basic reason why the theory of the
                    > enhanced greenhouse effect is bogus, along with all the claims of
                    global warming caused by increases in CO2.
                    >
                    > For Pete's sake, CO2 has increased by almost 1/3!! Where's the
                    response from the atmosphere? Most of it is on the ground, where it
                    > is generated by us, and trapped in our architectures. Today's heat
                    waves are no different than those of the 30's, when CO2 was
                    > substantially lower than today. What's the connection? There isn't
                    one. Heat waves are weather, and weather can hit extremes
                    > anytime.
                    >
                    > All weather events are 'out of control', except the minor cloud
                    seeding efforts. Climate has always been changing, and living
                    > things on earth have always adapted or died. That goes for the
                    future as well. It could get substantially warmer, or substantially
                    > colder than now. Seeing as we are in the middle of a warm period, I
                    wouldn't be too heavily on it getting warmer...
                    >
                    > John
                    > _____
                    >
                    > From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                    > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
                    > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.
                    >
                    >
                    > I don't disagree with anything you say here ... however ...
                    >
                    > 1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other aspects
                    of
                    > the controlled conditions, like more water and more nutrients.
                    There
                    > are 'rules' of limiting factors that affect plant growth. I have
                    > given plants extra CO2 in a controlled environment and have seen
                    > firsthand what happens when you boost growth without providing the
                    > extra water necessary. It's all in the photosynthesis equation.
                    >
                    > 2) We did not have our current agricultural systems in place when
                    > atmospheric CO2 was 500 times its current level.
                    >
                    > 3) Out of control weather events, which are affected by energy
                    > (heat) in the atmosphere do cause injury and death. More CO2 means
                    > more heat trapped (that whole greenhouse effect thing that keeps us
                    > alive). Now, I know we could adjust to climate change, but we have
                    a
                    > very large population to feed and find room for if the scenarios of
                    > drought and sea level rise come to pass, even without the extreme
                    > event of the Gulf Stream cutting off and plunging the north into
                    > another ice age.
                    >
                    > Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would it
                    > be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
                    > energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of
                    higher
                    > CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the risk?"
                    >
                    > What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of profit
                    for
                    > the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                    <shotsky1@h...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > Of course I can see the logic of taking overdoses of anything. I
                    do
                    > fail to see how this relates to CO2, however. Earth has had
                    > > several percentage points (500 times) more CO2 than now, and it
                    has
                    > varied up and down from current levels. It is vital to life, and
                    > > is injected into greenhouses to assist plant growth. I'm unaware
                    of
                    > any precautions that workers need take, however. CO2 is not a
                    > > poison or a pollutant. It can, however, displace oxygen, so if a
                    > high concentration of CO2 occurs in a closed space, the
                    > > displacement of oxygen could result in injury or death.
                    > >
                    > > John
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    >
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    >
                    >
                    <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
                    05948926:HM/A=1693352/R=0/SIG=11tralmvc/*http://www.netflix.co
                    > m/Default?mqso=60178293&partid=3170658> click here
                    > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                    M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693352/rand=296
                    993253>
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • F Cote
                    Hello Lasallia, The ARTICLE BELOW (which may well be legit) tends to confirm the points you made about the U.S. population being less aware of GW and Climate
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 3, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello Lasallia,

                      The ARTICLE BELOW (which may well be legit) tends to confirm the
                      points you made about the U.S. population being less aware of GW and
                      Climate Change. Note, though, that the French - Europeans - were even
                      worse! ; ) The differences in awareness between populations are not
                      stunning (from the data given which I have not verified) In fact they
                      support my thesis that people generally are not taking environmental
                      questions seriously (beyond lip service and a few feel-good
                      gestures). This is why I believe things will have to get worse before
                      they get better.

                      I looked up the book you mentioned on the feminization of nature
                      (D. Cadbury) and could not find it in the data bases of the municipal
                      library system. Her name is not listed as an author for any text in
                      the system, either. She is an unknown quantity. Could you provide a
                      few more coordinates for the book? : )

                      Ecologically,
                      Frank

                      Public release date: 3-Sep-2003


                      Contact: Andrea Lynn, Humanities & Social Sciences
                      andreal@...
                      217-333-2177
                      University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

                      Americans among most misinformed about global warming
                      Environment
                      CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Despite huge differences in all kinds of
                      resources, citizens of poorer developing countries have essentially
                      the same level of knowledge about the sources of global warming as
                      citizens of richer developed countries -- and that level isn't very
                      high.
                      "I find this quite remarkable," said Steven R. Brechin, the author of
                      a new cross-national study of public opinion and global climatic
                      change. "In essence, we humans are equally ignorant about the causes
                      of global climatic change. Citizens of poor countries have a pretty
                      good excuse, but what is ours?"

                      A sociology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
                      Champaign, Brechin presented his findings to the American
                      Sociological Association meeting in August. His study will be
                      published this fall in a special issue of the International Journal
                      of Sociology and Social Policy.

                      For his study of the views and attitudes of ordinary citizens all
                      over the globe, Brechin analyzed a variety of public opinion polls
                      conducted since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement
                      created to regulate the release of greenhouse gases. Polls included
                      various Gallup and Pew Research Center polls and studies by the
                      research group Environics International.

                      Some of the most surprising findings concern U.S. citizens. Not only
                      are Americans "more or less equally misinformed" as people elsewhere
                      about the causes of global warming, but they also are "among the most
                      misinformed of the developed nations surveyed. Only the Japanese and
                      the French are more so," Brechin wrote.

                      A 2001 poll, for example, found that only 15 percent of the U.S.
                      citizens surveyed correctly identified burning fossil fuels as the
                      primary cause of global warming. "Even the Cubans, at 17 percent,
                      were slightly more informed," Brechin wrote. The citizens of Mexico
                      led all 15 countries surveyed, with 26 percent of the respondents
                      correctly identifying fossil fuels.

                      Two years earlier, a 27-nation study of the human sources of
                      greenhouse gases revealed that most of the respondents in each
                      country did not know that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and
                      coal, and their resulting release of carbon dioxide, was the main
                      human source of greenhouse gases. Finland achieved the highest
                      percentage of correct responses (17); the United States and China
                      each got 11 percent.

                      Although the United States remains the largest emitter of carbon
                      dioxide from fuel combustion, the Bush administration in 2001
                      withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol because, the White House said, it
                      would hurt American business too much. Only 29 percent of the
                      American people approved of the Bush decision; 44 percent
                      disapproved, which was about half the number of Europeans who
                      disapproved.

                      Brechin concludes that where global warming policy is concerned, "the
                      international community, especially the Europeans and Japanese, may
                      need to continue to serve as America's conscience."



                      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > > I certainly agree that we have personal choices. In my original
                      > posting I was speaking of collective, social choices. An example
                      > would be a federal carbon tax whose revenues could be used as seed
                      > money to stimulate research and marketing of renewable energy.
                      >
                      > So our collective social choice would be to vote for the government
                      > that implemented such a tax. Hmmm. I'm not sure. Sometimes it
                      > doesn't seem to matter what the people think, the party line
                      > being, 'What do they know?'
                      >
                      > > YES, BUT.. they are subject to downstream pollution effects (air
                      or
                      > > water borne). Does that count? ; ) ; )
                      >
                      > In a country with private medical care? I think probably not.
                      >
                      > Maybe you are right, it is quite possible in fact.It may indeed be
                      > > too late to slam on the brakes and change direction once people
                      > begin to drop like flies but, again, I really do not see much of an
                      > > alternative. The present rate of re-conversion to a renewable
                      > > resource and energy base - while laudable - is taking too much
                      > time. We should have been where we are now back in the early
                      1970's.
                      > We have lost 30 years of precious lead-time in development.
                      >
                      > Yes, although I'm not sure this is true globally. In many European
                      > countries renewable energy is being taken very seriously. The
                      French
                      > use a lot of nuclear energy (not that I particularly agree with
                      that
                      > method of production either), and David's scathing introduction to
                      > the cutting about air pollution (Go, Kyoto, go) somehow neglected
                      to
                      > mention that this was not a common problem and that the French
                      > authorities were talking about measures like making inner cities
                      car
                      > free.
                      >
                      > > I think the summer in W. Europe was merely a wake up call
                      > > (15,000 "supplementary deaths" in France, Italy, Portugal and
                      > Spain - from the news services. I have not searched for data on
                      other
                      > > countries.)
                      >
                      > I think Europe is wide awake, it is the US that needs the call and
                      > the reaction I have heard about the situation tends to be along the
                      > lines of 'Well, they were old', or 'Who cares about the French?'
                      >
                      > > Exportable pollution is of course a big problem: out of sight,
                      out
                      > of mind, the curse of the NIMBY. :( "One" rationalizes the problem
                      > with feel-good platitudes: the Chinese are better off, we say, with
                      > > development even if there are "associated" (= externalized) costs
                      > in terms of pollution and health problems. If one is sophisticated,
                      > one can bolster this argument with stats by showing that, yes
                      indeed,
                      > the Chinese live longer, weigh more, have lower infant and child
                      > > mortality, etc. Ignored is the unsustainability of the
                      development
                      > in question..
                      >
                      > Isn't the infant mortality rate falling in most places, except
                      > perhaps Africa. Aren't the Chinese having fewer children? Not
                      that
                      > this, in itself, would make the rate lower but it would reduce
                      > crowding and allow more food and care per child perhaps.
                      >
                      > > Since the 1960s fertility has become an increasing problem for
                      > > married couples in industrial societies. Some data, still
                      contested
                      > > perhaps, suggests that sperm counts are down in men. This is
                      > logical in the sense that a lot of halogen containing pollutants
                      act
                      > like female hormones (xenoestrogens or "foreign estrogen-like
                      > agents"). I do not know if a cause-effect link has yet been
                      > established between rising infertility rates and xenoestrogens. The
                      > last time I reviewed the evidence, several years back, I recall it
                      > being noted that the majority of genital deformations noted in
                      > wildlife did, in fact, involve the feminization of males (fish, for
                      > example).
                      >
                      > May I recommend Deborah Cadbury's 'Altering Eden: the feminisation
                      of
                      > nature'? Associated problems are rising rates of testicular and
                      > prostate cancer. Sorry, off topic here for a moment or two, but I
                      > think it's something people should know about.
                      >
                      > > AH! That's when things get interesting. ; )
                      > > The Chinese have an ancient curse, "May you live in interesting
                      > > times!", that is, in times interesting to future historians, not
                      > the poor devils actually living in them. : (
                      > > Times of transition (whether for the better or not) tend to be
                      > > chaotic and "contingent", unpredictable. What happens once the
                      > bubble bursts is anyone's guess. So my best answer to your question
                      > > is, "they will behave chaotically" (in all the senses that word
                      is
                      > > used today, not all negative..) ; ) ; (
                      >
                      > And we do live in interesting times. I have heard more than one
                      > person say that they hope they live long enough to see some of the
                      > effects of climate change. How did you describe it recently?
                      > Intellectual curiousity or something like that. We are like kids
                      in
                      > a war zone ... watching the bombs fall and saying 'wow' when they
                      get
                      > a bit close. This sounds callous, I know, but is not meant in that
                      > way.
                    • lasallia
                      I suspect that the article you posted is as correct as any survey can be. It may be that the nations that perceive problems are more aware. I am quite
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 3, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I suspect that the article you posted is as correct as any survey can
                        be. It may be that the nations that perceive problems are more
                        aware. I am quite distressed at the lack of awareness of my
                        species. I always find it ironically amusing when the list of news
                        on Yahoo has 4 calamitous headlines followed by one totally
                        irrelevant sport or showbusiness snippet.

                        44 per cent of Americans disapproved of the Kyoto pull out.
                        Interesting. What is the voting record in the US? Is it about 30%?
                        Should I be drawing any conclusions from this?

                        The ISBN number of the Cadbury book is 0312243960 and it is on the
                        Canadian Amazon site so it is available there. Try for an
                        interlibrary loan maybe?

                        Sal



                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
                        wrote:
                        > Hello Lasallia,
                        >
                        > The ARTICLE BELOW (which may well be legit) tends to confirm the
                        > points you made about the U.S. population being less aware of GW
                        and
                        > Climate Change. Note, though, that the French - Europeans - were
                        even
                        > worse! ; ) The differences in awareness between populations are not
                        > stunning (from the data given which I have not verified) In fact
                        they
                        > support my thesis that people generally are not taking
                        environmental
                        > questions seriously (beyond lip service and a few feel-good
                        > gestures). This is why I believe things will have to get worse
                        before
                        > they get better.
                        >
                        > I looked up the book you mentioned on the feminization of nature
                        > (D. Cadbury) and could not find it in the data bases of the
                        municipal
                        > library system. Her name is not listed as an author for any text in
                        > the system, either. She is an unknown quantity. Could you provide a
                        > few more coordinates for the book? : )
                        >
                        > Ecologically,
                        > Frank
                        >
                        > Public release date: 3-Sep-2003
                        >
                        >
                        > Contact: Andrea Lynn, Humanities & Social Sciences
                        > andreal@u...
                        > 217-333-2177
                        > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
                        >
                        > Americans among most misinformed about global warming
                        > Environment
                        > CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Despite huge differences in all kinds of
                        > resources, citizens of poorer developing countries have essentially
                        > the same level of knowledge about the sources of global warming as
                        > citizens of richer developed countries -- and that level isn't very
                        > high.
                        > "I find this quite remarkable," said Steven R. Brechin, the author
                        of a new cross-national study of public opinion and global climatic
                        > change. "In essence, we humans are equally ignorant about the
                        causes of global climatic change. Citizens of poor countries have a
                        pretty good excuse, but what is ours?"
                        >
                        > A sociology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
                        > Champaign, Brechin presented his findings to the American
                        > Sociological Association meeting in August. His study will be
                        > published this fall in a special issue of the International Journal
                        > of Sociology and Social Policy.
                        >
                        > For his study of the views and attitudes of ordinary citizens all
                        > over the globe, Brechin analyzed a variety of public opinion polls
                        > conducted since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international
                        agreement
                        > created to regulate the release of greenhouse gases. Polls included
                        > various Gallup and Pew Research Center polls and studies by the
                        > research group Environics International.
                        >
                        > Some of the most surprising findings concern U.S. citizens. Not
                        only are Americans "more or less equally misinformed" as people
                        elsewhere about the causes of global warming, but they also
                        are "among the most misinformed of the developed nations surveyed.
                        Only the Japanese and the French are more so," Brechin wrote.
                        >
                        > A 2001 poll, for example, found that only 15 percent of the U.S.
                        > citizens surveyed correctly identified burning fossil fuels as the
                        > primary cause of global warming. "Even the Cubans, at 17 percent,
                        > were slightly more informed," Brechin wrote. The citizens of Mexico
                        > led all 15 countries surveyed, with 26 percent of the respondents
                        > correctly identifying fossil fuels.
                        >
                        > Two years earlier, a 27-nation study of the human sources of
                        > greenhouse gases revealed that most of the respondents in each
                        > country did not know that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas
                        and
                        > coal, and their resulting release of carbon dioxide, was the main
                        > human source of greenhouse gases. Finland achieved the highest
                        > percentage of correct responses (17); the United States and China
                        > each got 11 percent.
                        >
                        > Although the United States remains the largest emitter of carbon
                        > dioxide from fuel combustion, the Bush administration in 2001
                        > withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol because, the White House said, it
                        > would hurt American business too much. Only 29 percent of the
                        > American people approved of the Bush decision; 44 percent
                        > disapproved, which was about half the number of Europeans who
                        > disapproved.
                        >
                        > Brechin concludes that where global warming policy is
                        concerned, "the
                        > international community, especially the Europeans and Japanese, may
                        > need to continue to serve as America's conscience."
                      • tarh7777
                        The folks in this forum assume that the earth is significantly warming yet there is yet to be any conclusive evidence that it is. The studies that have been
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 4, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The folks in this forum assume that the earth is significantly
                          warming yet there is yet to be any conclusive evidence that it is.
                          The studies that have been done indicate that it is marginally
                          increasing at a very very low rate. The heat wave in Europe is not
                          evidence, it is merely a unusually warm (hot even) summer. In the
                          places that I have been in the U.S. this summer (North Carolina and
                          Texas) has been rather cool or at least it seems to me although I
                          cannot cite data.

                          So the sociologists are going to weigh-in on GW. my, my. Just what
                          is their experise on the subject? The way that it was phrased in the
                          survey they are assuming that GW is a fact. They should be
                          entertaining the idea that it is not. Maybe the average person is
                          ahead of them.

                          And Sal, your idea of aiming a fan at the ceiling was a good one. I
                          am by nature, as stingy as you and that is a useful idea. It is
                          comforting to hear that Europeans are as blase' as Americans about
                          GW. It is shocking that over 40% of Americans were opposed to the
                          U.S. pulling out of Kyoto. I would hope that the number would be
                          lower. At least it was 100% of the U.S. Senate who voted not to even
                          consider the idea. Europe and Japan need to regard the U.S. as THEIR
                          conscience.
                        • lasallia
                          Assume? No, we know it is warming, at an increasing rate. You assume, based on what you hear from the fossil fuel merchants, that it isn t. The Greening
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 4, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Assume? No, we know it is warming, at an increasing rate. You
                            assume, based on what you hear from the fossil fuel merchants, that
                            it isn't. The Greening Earth Society: There is no warming and that
                            warming is a good thing anyway!

                            The heat wave in Europe is the latest in a trend of warmer and wilder
                            weather. No one said it was evidence, but it is not an isolated
                            event any longer. The sand you have your head in, Ross, is it
                            terribly thick? Could you haul out of there for a short while and
                            look at some data?

                            Sociologists tend to be pretty good at asking people things. They
                            know how to conduct a survey, and for the purpose of the article,
                            that's all we needed.



                            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, tarh7777 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > The folks in this forum assume that the earth is significantly
                            > warming yet there is yet to be any conclusive evidence that it is.
                            > The studies that have been done indicate that it is marginally
                            > increasing at a very very low rate. The heat wave in Europe is not
                            > evidence, it is merely a unusually warm (hot even) summer. In the
                            > places that I have been in the U.S. this summer (North Carolina and
                            > Texas) has been rather cool or at least it seems to me although I
                            > cannot cite data.
                            >
                            > So the sociologists are going to weigh-in on GW. my, my. Just what
                            > is their experise on the subject? The way that it was phrased in
                            the survey they are assuming that GW is a fact. They should be
                            > entertaining the idea that it is not. Maybe the average person is
                            > ahead of them.
                            >
                            > And Sal, your idea of aiming a fan at the ceiling was a good one.
                            I am by nature, as stingy as you and that is a useful idea. It is
                            > comforting to hear that Europeans are as blase' as Americans about
                            > GW. It is shocking that over 40% of Americans were opposed to the
                            > U.S. pulling out of Kyoto. I would hope that the number would be
                            > lower. At least it was 100% of the U.S. Senate who voted not to
                            even consider the idea. Europe and Japan need to regard the U.S. as
                            THEIR conscience.
                          • F Cote
                            Boy, some GW deniers can t their facts straight. It was me, Frank, who suggested aiming the fan at the FLOOR (heat rises - sort of, last time I checked,
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 4, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Boy, some GW deniers can't their facts straight. It was me, Frank,
                              who suggested aiming the fan at the FLOOR (heat rises - sort of, last
                              time I checked, anyway..) : ) : )

                              The real question is, it may be a good idea, but will YOU put into
                              PRACTICE.. (or its equivalent for hot climates).

                              Original text:


                              And Sal, your idea of aiming a fan at the ceiling was a good one. I
                              am by nature, as stingy as you and that is a useful idea.

                              ______________________________________________________________________

                              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > Assume? No, we know it is warming, at an increasing rate. You
                              > assume, based on what you hear from the fossil fuel merchants, that
                              > it isn't. The Greening Earth Society: There is no warming and that
                              > warming is a good thing anyway!
                              >
                              > The heat wave in Europe is the latest in a trend of warmer and
                              wilder
                              > weather. No one said it was evidence, but it is not an isolated
                              > event any longer. The sand you have your head in, Ross, is it
                              > terribly thick? Could you haul out of there for a short while and
                              > look at some data?
                              >
                              > Sociologists tend to be pretty good at asking people things. They
                              > know how to conduct a survey, and for the purpose of the article,
                              > that's all we needed.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, tarh7777 <no_reply@y...>
                              wrote:
                              > > The folks in this forum assume that the earth is significantly
                              > > warming yet there is yet to be any conclusive evidence that it
                              is.
                              > > The studies that have been done indicate that it is marginally
                              > > increasing at a very very low rate. The heat wave in Europe is
                              not
                              > > evidence, it is merely a unusually warm (hot even) summer. In
                              the
                              > > places that I have been in the U.S. this summer (North Carolina
                              and
                              > > Texas) has been rather cool or at least it seems to me although I
                              > > cannot cite data.
                              > >
                              > > So the sociologists are going to weigh-in on GW. my, my. Just
                              what
                              > > is their experise on the subject? The way that it was phrased in
                              > the survey they are assuming that GW is a fact. They should be
                              > > entertaining the idea that it is not. Maybe the average person
                              is
                              > > ahead of them.
                              > >
                              > > And Sal, your idea of aiming a fan at the ceiling was a good
                              one.
                              > I am by nature, as stingy as you and that is a useful idea. It is
                              > > comforting to hear that Europeans are as blase' as Americans
                              about
                              > > GW. It is shocking that over 40% of Americans were opposed to
                              the
                              > > U.S. pulling out of Kyoto. I would hope that the number would be
                              > > lower. At least it was 100% of the U.S. Senate who voted not to
                              > even consider the idea. Europe and Japan need to regard the U.S.
                              as
                              > THEIR conscience.
                            • F Cote
                              Hello Sal, Thank you for the info on the book. Will check out. Frank ... can ... 30%? ... not ... nature ... in ... a ... essentially ... as ... very ...
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 4, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello Sal,

                                Thank you for the info on the book. Will check out.

                                Frank

                                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                > I suspect that the article you posted is as correct as any survey
                                can
                                > be. It may be that the nations that perceive problems are more
                                > aware. I am quite distressed at the lack of awareness of my
                                > species. I always find it ironically amusing when the list of news
                                > on Yahoo has 4 calamitous headlines followed by one totally
                                > irrelevant sport or showbusiness snippet.
                                >
                                > 44 per cent of Americans disapproved of the Kyoto pull out.
                                > Interesting. What is the voting record in the US? Is it about
                                30%?
                                > Should I be drawing any conclusions from this?
                                >
                                > The ISBN number of the Cadbury book is 0312243960 and it is on the
                                > Canadian Amazon site so it is available there. Try for an
                                > interlibrary loan maybe?
                                >
                                > Sal
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
                                > wrote:
                                > > Hello Lasallia,
                                > >
                                > > The ARTICLE BELOW (which may well be legit) tends to confirm the
                                > > points you made about the U.S. population being less aware of GW
                                > and
                                > > Climate Change. Note, though, that the French - Europeans - were
                                > even
                                > > worse! ; ) The differences in awareness between populations are
                                not
                                > > stunning (from the data given which I have not verified) In fact
                                > they
                                > > support my thesis that people generally are not taking
                                > environmental
                                > > questions seriously (beyond lip service and a few feel-good
                                > > gestures). This is why I believe things will have to get worse
                                > before
                                > > they get better.
                                > >
                                > > I looked up the book you mentioned on the feminization of
                                nature
                                > > (D. Cadbury) and could not find it in the data bases of the
                                > municipal
                                > > library system. Her name is not listed as an author for any text
                                in
                                > > the system, either. She is an unknown quantity. Could you provide
                                a
                                > > few more coordinates for the book? : )
                                > >
                                > > Ecologically,
                                > > Frank
                                > >
                                > > Public release date: 3-Sep-2003
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Contact: Andrea Lynn, Humanities & Social Sciences
                                > > andreal@u...
                                > > 217-333-2177
                                > > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
                                > >
                                > > Americans among most misinformed about global warming
                                > > Environment
                                > > CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Despite huge differences in all kinds of
                                > > resources, citizens of poorer developing countries have
                                essentially
                                > > the same level of knowledge about the sources of global warming
                                as
                                > > citizens of richer developed countries -- and that level isn't
                                very
                                > > high.
                                > > "I find this quite remarkable," said Steven R. Brechin, the
                                author
                                > of a new cross-national study of public opinion and global climatic
                                > > change. "In essence, we humans are equally ignorant about the
                                > causes of global climatic change. Citizens of poor countries have a
                                > pretty good excuse, but what is ours?"
                                > >
                                > > A sociology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
                                > > Champaign, Brechin presented his findings to the American
                                > > Sociological Association meeting in August. His study will be
                                > > published this fall in a special issue of the International
                                Journal
                                > > of Sociology and Social Policy.
                                > >
                                > > For his study of the views and attitudes of ordinary citizens all
                                > > over the globe, Brechin analyzed a variety of public opinion
                                polls
                                > > conducted since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international
                                > agreement
                                > > created to regulate the release of greenhouse gases. Polls
                                included
                                > > various Gallup and Pew Research Center polls and studies by the
                                > > research group Environics International.
                                > >
                                > > Some of the most surprising findings concern U.S. citizens. Not
                                > only are Americans "more or less equally misinformed" as people
                                > elsewhere about the causes of global warming, but they also
                                > are "among the most misinformed of the developed nations surveyed.
                                > Only the Japanese and the French are more so," Brechin wrote.
                                > >
                                > > A 2001 poll, for example, found that only 15 percent of the U.S.
                                > > citizens surveyed correctly identified burning fossil fuels as
                                the
                                > > primary cause of global warming. "Even the Cubans, at 17 percent,
                                > > were slightly more informed," Brechin wrote. The citizens of
                                Mexico
                                > > led all 15 countries surveyed, with 26 percent of the respondents
                                > > correctly identifying fossil fuels.
                                > >
                                > > Two years earlier, a 27-nation study of the human sources of
                                > > greenhouse gases revealed that most of the respondents in each
                                > > country did not know that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas
                                > and
                                > > coal, and their resulting release of carbon dioxide, was the main
                                > > human source of greenhouse gases. Finland achieved the highest
                                > > percentage of correct responses (17); the United States and China
                                > > each got 11 percent.
                                > >
                                > > Although the United States remains the largest emitter of carbon
                                > > dioxide from fuel combustion, the Bush administration in 2001
                                > > withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol because, the White House said,
                                it
                                > > would hurt American business too much. Only 29 percent of the
                                > > American people approved of the Bush decision; 44 percent
                                > > disapproved, which was about half the number of Europeans who
                                > > disapproved.
                                > >
                                > > Brechin concludes that where global warming policy is
                                > concerned, "the
                                > > international community, especially the Europeans and Japanese,
                                may
                                > > need to continue to serve as America's conscience."
                              • John Shotsky
                                Is there any point in pointing out that the heat that is supposedly being trapped by the atmosphere cannot be detected? The whole stupid theory is based on
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 4, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Is there any point in pointing out that the heat that is supposedly being trapped by the atmosphere cannot be detected? The whole
                                  stupid theory is based on that. It would have to have warmed in the atmosphere FIRST in order for the theory to be validated.
                                  Instead, we have some minor warming on the surface, where we GENERATE our heat, and TRAP the sun's heat in our buildings and roads.
                                  THOSE are hard facts.

                                  John


                                  _____

                                  From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                                  Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:10 AM
                                  To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.


                                  Is there any point in giving you some hard facts about the heat
                                  anomalies both on land and in the ocean? You have some explanation
                                  for these, no doubt. Natural cycles, sun spot activity ... that kind
                                  of thing?




                                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > <CO2 means more heat trapped>
                                  >
                                  > If heat was being trapped, particularly in the atmosphere, it could
                                  be measured. Heat is not being trapped, that's why balloons and
                                  > satellite measuring systems cannot detect this fictitious
                                  additional heat. It is the most basic reason why the theory of the
                                  > enhanced greenhouse effect is bogus, along with all the claims of
                                  global warming caused by increases in CO2.
                                  >
                                  > For Pete's sake, CO2 has increased by almost 1/3!! Where's the
                                  response from the atmosphere? Most of it is on the ground, where it
                                  > is generated by us, and trapped in our architectures. Today's heat
                                  waves are no different than those of the 30's, when CO2 was
                                  > substantially lower than today. What's the connection? There isn't
                                  one. Heat waves are weather, and weather can hit extremes
                                  > anytime.
                                  >
                                  > All weather events are 'out of control', except the minor cloud
                                  seeding efforts. Climate has always been changing, and living
                                  > things on earth have always adapted or died. That goes for the
                                  future as well. It could get substantially warmer, or substantially
                                  > colder than now. Seeing as we are in the middle of a warm period, I
                                  wouldn't be too heavily on it getting warmer...
                                  >
                                  > John
                                  > _____
                                  >
                                  > From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                                  > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
                                  > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I don't disagree with anything you say here ... however ...
                                  >
                                  > 1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other aspects
                                  of
                                  > the controlled conditions, like more water and more nutrients.
                                  There
                                  > are 'rules' of limiting factors that affect plant growth. I have
                                  > given plants extra CO2 in a controlled environment and have seen
                                  > firsthand what happens when you boost growth without providing the
                                  > extra water necessary. It's all in the photosynthesis equation.
                                  >
                                  > 2) We did not have our current agricultural systems in place when
                                  > atmospheric CO2 was 500 times its current level.
                                  >
                                  > 3) Out of control weather events, which are affected by energy
                                  > (heat) in the atmosphere do cause injury and death. More CO2 means
                                  > more heat trapped (that whole greenhouse effect thing that keeps us
                                  > alive). Now, I know we could adjust to climate change, but we have
                                  a
                                  > very large population to feed and find room for if the scenarios of
                                  > drought and sea level rise come to pass, even without the extreme
                                  > event of the Gulf Stream cutting off and plunging the north into
                                  > another ice age.
                                  >
                                  > Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would it
                                  > be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
                                  > energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of
                                  higher
                                  > CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the risk?"
                                  >
                                  > What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of profit
                                  for
                                  > the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                                  <shotsky1@h...>
                                  > wrote:
                                  > > Of course I can see the logic of taking overdoses of anything. I
                                  do
                                  > fail to see how this relates to CO2, however. Earth has had
                                  > > several percentage points (500 times) more CO2 than now, and it
                                  has
                                  > varied up and down from current levels. It is vital to life, and
                                  > > is injected into greenhouses to assist plant growth. I'm unaware
                                  of
                                  > any precautions that workers need take, however. CO2 is not a
                                  > > poison or a pollutant. It can, however, displace oxygen, so if a
                                  > high concentration of CO2 occurs in a closed space, the
                                  > > displacement of oxygen could result in injury or death.
                                  > >
                                  > > John
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                  >
                                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                                  >
                                  >
                                  <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
                                  05948926:HM/A=1693352/R=0/SIG=11tralmvc/*http://www.netflix.co
                                  > m/Default?mqso=60178293&partid=3170658> click here
                                  > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                  M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693352/rand=296
                                  993253>
                                  >
                                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                  <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                                  ADVERTISEMENT

                                  <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705948926:HM/A=1693353/R=0/SIG=11t71ok4g/*http://www.netflix.co
                                  m/Default?mqso=60178294&partid=3170658> click here
                                  <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693353/rand=292388447>

                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • lasallia
                                  The heat we generate and trap in our buildings and roads is then magically moved to the oceans and those other places far away where the temperature is being
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 4, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    The heat we generate and trap in our buildings and roads is then
                                    magically moved to the oceans and those other places far away where
                                    the temperature is being measured. Is that the scenario? Well,
                                    well. I wondered what your theory of warmer oceans would be. I was
                                    all ready to hear that we had a couple of people constantly boiling
                                    water and pouring it in.

                                    You don't think that heat leaves the surface more slowly when the air
                                    just above it is warmer then? How do you explain the areas that are
                                    getting cooler? We are generating cold there? Gimme more hard
                                    facts, I love 'em!


                                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                                    wrote:
                                    > Is there any point in pointing out that the heat that is supposedly
                                    being trapped by the atmosphere cannot be detected? The whole
                                    > stupid theory is based on that. It would have to have warmed in the
                                    atmosphere FIRST in order for the theory to be validated.
                                    > Instead, we have some minor warming on the surface, where we
                                    GENERATE our heat, and TRAP the sun's heat in our buildings and roads.
                                    > THOSE are hard facts.
                                    >
                                    > John
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • F Cote
                                    Loaded language like stupid theory suggests an emotional bias while Scientific Thinking is supposed to relatively free of such subjective factors, yes? So
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 6, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Loaded language like "stupid theory" suggests an emotional bias while
                                      Scientific Thinking is supposed to relatively free of such subjective
                                      factors, yes? So much for the prefaces of our college texts..



                                      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > Is there any point in pointing out that the heat that is supposedly
                                      being trapped by the atmosphere cannot be detected? The whole
                                      > stupid theory is based on that. It would have to have warmed in the
                                      atmosphere FIRST in order for the theory to be validated.
                                      > Instead, we have some minor warming on the surface, where we
                                      GENERATE our heat, and TRAP the sun's heat in our buildings and roads.
                                      > THOSE are hard facts.
                                      >
                                      > John
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > _____
                                      >
                                      > From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                                      > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:10 AM
                                      > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Is there any point in giving you some hard facts about the heat
                                      > anomalies both on land and in the ocean? You have some explanation
                                      > for these, no doubt. Natural cycles, sun spot activity ... that
                                      kind
                                      > of thing?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                                      <shotsky1@h...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > > <CO2 means more heat trapped>
                                      > >
                                      > > If heat was being trapped, particularly in the atmosphere, it
                                      could
                                      > be measured. Heat is not being trapped, that's why balloons and
                                      > > satellite measuring systems cannot detect this fictitious
                                      > additional heat. It is the most basic reason why the theory of the
                                      > > enhanced greenhouse effect is bogus, along with all the claims of
                                      > global warming caused by increases in CO2.
                                      > >
                                      > > For Pete's sake, CO2 has increased by almost 1/3!! Where's the
                                      > response from the atmosphere? Most of it is on the ground, where it
                                      > > is generated by us, and trapped in our architectures. Today's
                                      heat
                                      > waves are no different than those of the 30's, when CO2 was
                                      > > substantially lower than today. What's the connection? There
                                      isn't
                                      > one. Heat waves are weather, and weather can hit extremes
                                      > > anytime.
                                      > >
                                      > > All weather events are 'out of control', except the minor cloud
                                      > seeding efforts. Climate has always been changing, and living
                                      > > things on earth have always adapted or died. That goes for the
                                      > future as well. It could get substantially warmer, or substantially
                                      > > colder than now. Seeing as we are in the middle of a warm period,
                                      I
                                      > wouldn't be too heavily on it getting warmer...
                                      > >
                                      > > John
                                      > > _____
                                      > >
                                      > > From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                                      > > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
                                      > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > I don't disagree with anything you say here ... however ...
                                      > >
                                      > > 1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other
                                      aspects
                                      > of
                                      > > the controlled conditions, like more water and more nutrients.
                                      > There
                                      > > are 'rules' of limiting factors that affect plant growth. I have
                                      > > given plants extra CO2 in a controlled environment and have seen
                                      > > firsthand what happens when you boost growth without providing
                                      the
                                      > > extra water necessary. It's all in the photosynthesis equation.
                                      > >
                                      > > 2) We did not have our current agricultural systems in place
                                      when
                                      > > atmospheric CO2 was 500 times its current level.
                                      > >
                                      > > 3) Out of control weather events, which are affected by energy
                                      > > (heat) in the atmosphere do cause injury and death. More CO2
                                      means
                                      > > more heat trapped (that whole greenhouse effect thing that keeps
                                      us
                                      > > alive). Now, I know we could adjust to climate change, but we
                                      have
                                      > a
                                      > > very large population to feed and find room for if the scenarios
                                      of
                                      > > drought and sea level rise come to pass, even without the extreme
                                      > > event of the Gulf Stream cutting off and plunging the north into
                                      > > another ice age.
                                      > >
                                      > > Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would
                                      it
                                      > > be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
                                      > > energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of
                                      > higher
                                      > > CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the risk?"
                                      > >
                                      > > What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of profit
                                      > for
                                      > > the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                                      > <shotsky1@h...>
                                      > > wrote:
                                      > > > Of course I can see the logic of taking overdoses of anything.
                                      I
                                      > do
                                      > > fail to see how this relates to CO2, however. Earth has had
                                      > > > several percentage points (500 times) more CO2 than now, and it
                                      > has
                                      > > varied up and down from current levels. It is vital to life, and
                                      > > > is injected into greenhouses to assist plant growth. I'm
                                      unaware
                                      > of
                                      > > any precautions that workers need take, however. CO2 is not a
                                      > > > poison or a pollutant. It can, however, displace oxygen, so if
                                      a
                                      > > high concentration of CO2 occurs in a closed space, the
                                      > > > displacement of oxygen could result in injury or death.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > John
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      > >
                                      > > ADVERTISEMENT
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
                                      > 05948926:HM/A=1693352/R=0/SIG=11tralmvc/*http://www.netflix.co
                                      > > m/Default?mqso=60178293&partid=3170658> click here
                                      > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                      >
                                      M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693352/rand=296
                                      > 993253>
                                      > >
                                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                      Service
                                      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      >
                                      > ADVERTISEMENT
                                      >
                                      >
                                      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
                                      05948926:HM/A=1693353/R=0/SIG=11t71ok4g/*http://www.netflix.co
                                      > m/Default?mqso=60178294&partid=3170658> click here
                                      > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                      M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693353/rand=292
                                      388447>
                                      >
                                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • F Cote
                                      John, Please take a look at this link which Liberty1776 recently posted. Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences (Adopted by
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 6, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        John,

                                        Please take a look at this link which Liberty1776 recently posted.

                                        Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related
                                        Sciences
                                        (Adopted by AMS Council on 9 February 2003)
                                        Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515
                                        http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

                                        This appears to me, at least, to be the official position taken by
                                        the American Meteorological Society, a professional body of
                                        weatherfolks. Are they idiots? Do they know their trade less well
                                        than, say, your dentist or doctor or house repair contractor? Do such
                                        prononcements by professional organizations working in the field of
                                        weather and climate meaning nothing? If not, WHY not? Why should
                                        professionals working in their domain of expertise (for which they
                                        studied years in University) be less comptetent than other
                                        professionals (who also studied years in University)? I just don't
                                        get it. I draw a complete blank here.

                                        Frank


                                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky" <shotsky1@h...>
                                        wrote:
                                        > Is there any point in pointing out that the heat that is supposedly
                                        being trapped by the atmosphere cannot be detected? The whole
                                        > stupid theory is based on that. It would have to have warmed in the
                                        atmosphere FIRST in order for the theory to be validated.
                                        > Instead, we have some minor warming on the surface, where we
                                        GENERATE our heat, and TRAP the sun's heat in our buildings and roads.
                                        > THOSE are hard facts.
                                        >
                                        > John
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > _____
                                        >
                                        > From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                                        > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:10 AM
                                        > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Is there any point in giving you some hard facts about the heat
                                        > anomalies both on land and in the ocean? You have some explanation
                                        > for these, no doubt. Natural cycles, sun spot activity ... that
                                        kind
                                        > of thing?
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                                        <shotsky1@h...>
                                        > wrote:
                                        > > <CO2 means more heat trapped>
                                        > >
                                        > > If heat was being trapped, particularly in the atmosphere, it
                                        could
                                        > be measured. Heat is not being trapped, that's why balloons and
                                        > > satellite measuring systems cannot detect this fictitious
                                        > additional heat. It is the most basic reason why the theory of the
                                        > > enhanced greenhouse effect is bogus, along with all the claims of
                                        > global warming caused by increases in CO2.
                                        > >
                                        > > For Pete's sake, CO2 has increased by almost 1/3!! Where's the
                                        > response from the atmosphere? Most of it is on the ground, where it
                                        > > is generated by us, and trapped in our architectures. Today's
                                        heat
                                        > waves are no different than those of the 30's, when CO2 was
                                        > > substantially lower than today. What's the connection? There
                                        isn't
                                        > one. Heat waves are weather, and weather can hit extremes
                                        > > anytime.
                                        > >
                                        > > All weather events are 'out of control', except the minor cloud
                                        > seeding efforts. Climate has always been changing, and living
                                        > > things on earth have always adapted or died. That goes for the
                                        > future as well. It could get substantially warmer, or substantially
                                        > > colder than now. Seeing as we are in the middle of a warm period,
                                        I
                                        > wouldn't be too heavily on it getting warmer...
                                        > >
                                        > > John
                                        > > _____
                                        > >
                                        > > From: lasallia [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                                        > > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
                                        > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > Subject: Re: [Global Warming] To be or not to be a pollutant.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > I don't disagree with anything you say here ... however ...
                                        > >
                                        > > 1) In the greenhouses where CO2 is pumped there are other
                                        aspects
                                        > of
                                        > > the controlled conditions, like more water and more nutrients.
                                        > There
                                        > > are 'rules' of limiting factors that affect plant growth. I have
                                        > > given plants extra CO2 in a controlled environment and have seen
                                        > > firsthand what happens when you boost growth without providing
                                        the
                                        > > extra water necessary. It's all in the photosynthesis equation.
                                        > >
                                        > > 2) We did not have our current agricultural systems in place
                                        when
                                        > > atmospheric CO2 was 500 times its current level.
                                        > >
                                        > > 3) Out of control weather events, which are affected by energy
                                        > > (heat) in the atmosphere do cause injury and death. More CO2
                                        means
                                        > > more heat trapped (that whole greenhouse effect thing that keeps
                                        us
                                        > > alive). Now, I know we could adjust to climate change, but we
                                        have
                                        > a
                                        > > very large population to feed and find room for if the scenarios
                                        of
                                        > > drought and sea level rise come to pass, even without the extreme
                                        > > event of the Gulf Stream cutting off and plunging the north into
                                        > > another ice age.
                                        > >
                                        > > Our quality of life is not improved by wasting energy, nor would
                                        it
                                        > > be impaired by using different, renewable, methods of producing
                                        > > energy. We are not really absolutely sure what the effects of
                                        > higher
                                        > > CO2 will, but the question I would ask is "Is it worth the risk?"
                                        > >
                                        > > What do you think. Is it worth the risk, for the sake of profit
                                        > for
                                        > > the fossil fuel producers? When we have a choice?
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "John Shotsky"
                                        > <shotsky1@h...>
                                        > > wrote:
                                        > > > Of course I can see the logic of taking overdoses of anything.
                                        I
                                        > do
                                        > > fail to see how this relates to CO2, however. Earth has had
                                        > > > several percentage points (500 times) more CO2 than now, and it
                                        > has
                                        > > varied up and down from current levels. It is vital to life, and
                                        > > > is injected into greenhouses to assist plant growth. I'm
                                        unaware
                                        > of
                                        > > any precautions that workers need take, however. CO2 is not a
                                        > > > poison or a pollutant. It can, however, displace oxygen, so if
                                        a
                                        > > high concentration of CO2 occurs in a closed space, the
                                        > > > displacement of oxygen could result in injury or death.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > John
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                        > >
                                        > > ADVERTISEMENT
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
                                        > 05948926:HM/A=1693352/R=0/SIG=11tralmvc/*http://www.netflix.co
                                        > > m/Default?mqso=60178293&partid=3170658> click here
                                        > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                        >
                                        M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693352/rand=296
                                        > 993253>
                                        > >
                                        > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        > > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                        Service
                                        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                        >
                                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                                        >
                                        >
                                        <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
                                        05948926:HM/A=1693353/R=0/SIG=11t71ok4g/*http://www.netflix.co
                                        > m/Default?mqso=60178294&partid=3170658> click here
                                        > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                        M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1693353/rand=292
                                        388447>
                                        >
                                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        > globalwarming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.