George Will on global warming

Well, Joe, then maybe you should look at the things in the links you post. It's the one with the "projections to 2100."

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm#table1

Meanwhile, here are a few questions (and answers) for you:

What is the margin of error when the temperature of the earth is measured?
Answer: Between +/- (.6-.8) degrees celsius- the IPCC3 quantifies the increase global increase in temperature as 0.6, which leaves us within 0.2 °C of the margin of error! That means it could actually be cooler right now than 100 years ago.)

What is the primary cause of the "greenhouse" effect?
Answer: Water, both as water droplets (clouds) and water vapor account for around 90-95% of the effect which keeps our planet warm enough for us to live on.

What percentage of Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
Answer: 0.038% up from 0.028% pre industrial revolution - thats right, its still a trace gas.

Is the heat absorbtion of CO2 logrithmic or linear?
answer: logrithmic - it can only absorb so much heat and will become saturated

Is CO2 good for the biosphere?
Answer: Yes, plants love the stuff- many growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses. More and healtier plants mean less CO2 and more O2.

Are consumer vehicles the largest source of human made CO2?
Answer: No. Glass, steel, electricity production and heating oil all create greater emissions.

 

Dude, one more post Old_tony and you hit 1,000.
But this one ...

Has already been completely debunked as nonsense.

 

Oh, so we're responsible for the entire content of pages we link to? I'll make a note of the new board rules.

Since you're now responding to points I never made, I think we have a pretty good idea of how you're faring in this discussion.

Let's try and get you off this tangent and back on track: Was your vaunted MIT expert right or wrong when he claimed that the Earth was warmer in the 1930s than it is now?

 

Also, water vapor is supposed to work the way it is. Balance of nature? Ecosystem? Does any of this ring a bell?
At this point, he's just cutting and pasting, and he plainly never has read a word on this that disrupts his fragile little mind.

 

The truth is everyone claims that CO2 warms the earth and we always are concerned with how many trees we have and the general health of our ecosystem. The point they fail to miss or link as you were is that plant life lives off of CO2 therefore the more plants we have the more CO2 that is needed to maintain that plant live. So your so called global warming is really nothing more then proof that we are a more green environment today then we were say 40 years ago. I am all for taking the proper steps to take care of our world and support alternative fuels and heating source but the truth of the matter is we have the same amout of energy potential in our environment every day, every year. It is foolish to think we can control a planet so huge. I can control the environment of my house and my body but I certainly have no control over our local weather and If I did I would be God. (Opps there is no God right infidels err. communists, er Liberals, er Jack A..es)

 

Yeah, there hasn't been any destruction of the rain forests. In fact, they've expanded over the past 40 years.

 

Let ignore the fact the people in South America are trying to build homes from themselves or have business and just claim they are destroying the rain forest. Let also ignore the fact that our air pollution standards are 100% stricter then the were 40 years ago. Ignoring the fact we have more preserved land in the United States then every before. Ignoring the fact that so called destroying (er preserving the forests) means cutting some of the old brush down to ensure that new plant life continues to grow and tropospheres does not destroy the plant life under the trees thus starving the animal life. Ignoring all those facts yea we are worse off now then 40 years ago. Most the fires in California are started by dry bush which I am pretty sure makes the air pollution in the near by areas worse.

 

Don't talk down to me about land mangement. I actually do it on acreage I own.

Trying to say "More CO2 is proof we have a better environment" is just silly. That's simply not the case.

 

It wouldn't be as silly as saying because we have slightly in the millionths of a percent more CO2 we have global warming. If anything C02 relates much more to plant life (since they need it to live) as opposed to .6 degrees in temperature change that is more directly related to ocean current changes and the gravitational pull of the sun and other planets.

 

Um, Tim Ball has been proven to be a fraud and a liar.

He was, for most of the 28 years he spent at the University of Winnipeg, a junior professor in geography with very little work published even in that field. That's contrary to his claim that he has been the FIRST professor of climatology in Canada.

He's also a so-called scientific advisor to an oil industry lobby group in Calgary "The Friends of Science".

Yup, I'm gonna believe him

 

God, read something besides the stuff that makes you feel good, OK?
The gravitational pull of the sun? Other planets? Which ones? Why not the moon, which is closer, and actually does have a palpable effect on Earth. You may recall the tides from your reading? Actual climatologists are scared to death and, sooner or later, we're going to hear about gamma rays or something. It is good to have more CO2 because we have more plants? What in the fuck are you talking about?
Oops, the elder Anthony has been busted with another hack, this one from out of town.

 

Understanding himself to be just a small part of the circle of life, Indians Network tends his garden.