http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere "The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 396 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of June 2012" that's close to 400 ppm. the 200/250 ppm is kept vague, because we don't have accurate data, but the 'Carbon dioxide variations' graph depicting CO2 concentrations over the last 400.000 years show it swinging between lower than 200 and higher than 250. It is true that it was 284 in 1832, but you can't pinpoint a starting point at which humans began influence CO2 ppm (so I said a few centuries, but I could also have said a few million years : we are burning wood for at least 1.9 million years).
things totally out of our control (e.g., volcanos, meteors, solar variation, etc), may in the end drown out our effect
the earth had reached sort of an equilibrium - CO2 released by volcanoes etcetera was being cancelled out by plants taking it out of the atmosphere, but in the latest few centuries humans have changed the co2 concentration in the atmosphere from 200/250 to 400 ppm
Hey, even a one in a million chance will come through now and then...
success rate of projects is mostly dependent on the people in the project, not whether it is being managed by government or private. take it from someone who has been in consultancy for over 15 years, government managed, privately(big and small companies) managed, and the whole range in between.
Years and years of trying to undermine AGW, and this is ALL they came up with ??? --> STILL no proof of NOT-AGW, while there's a 1000 times more money at stake for the oil-industry than for the scientists... You can bet the scientists have less budget to 'prove' AGW than the oil industry has been using to delay any CO2-mitigating policies one way or the other. You can bet they tried to blow this story out of proportion.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, but the western world is exporting a lot of 'deforestation' to S-America. (food for our cows).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 396 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of June 2012"
that's close to 400 ppm.
the 200/250 ppm is kept vague, because we don't have accurate data, but the 'Carbon dioxide variations' graph depicting CO2 concentrations over the last 400.000 years show it swinging between lower than 200 and higher than 250. It is true that it was 284 in 1832, but you can't pinpoint a starting point at which humans began influence CO2 ppm (so I said a few centuries, but I could also have said a few million years : we are burning wood for at least 1.9 million years).
deforestation ?
things totally out of our control (e.g., volcanos, meteors, solar variation, etc), may in the end drown out our effect
the earth had reached sort of an equilibrium - CO2 released by volcanoes etcetera was being cancelled out by plants taking it out of the atmosphere, but in the latest few centuries humans have changed the co2 concentration in the atmosphere from 200/250 to 400 ppm
cheap electrical power available from nukes
That's not really true.
Hey, even a one in a million chance will come through now and then...
success rate of projects is mostly dependent on the people in the project, not whether it is being managed by government or private. take it from someone who has been in consultancy for over 15 years, government managed, privately(big and small companies) managed, and the whole range in between.
task to thousands of private businesses in the open market, rather than continue to hold a monopoly.
yeah, businesses don't eventually end up being a monopoly.
http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/the-network-of-global-corporate-control/
working their way down to the grunt workers
No, they wealth is trickling SIDEWAYS into tax-shelters.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-21-trillion-31-trillion-offshore-tax-havens-2012-7?op=1
and with the people 'in power' you mean who? The 'elected' puppets ?
Researcher criticized, making research look bad > ad hominem
Research criticized, making researcher look bad > not ad hominem
widely displaying a single story about problems in 1 AGW research trying to deface global AGW research --> ad hominem.
think twice when you see the words 'independent' and 'news organisation' in 1 sentence.
http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/the-network-of-global-corporate-control/
"Within this there is a large ‘core’, containing 1347 corporations each of whom owns directly and/or indirectly shares in every other member of the core."
I hope you understand one day how capitalism works.
it wasn't an ad hominem either.
that's BS, and you know it. The story made the front page of many newspapers, one of few science-related stories a year.
Years and years of trying to undermine AGW, and this is ALL they came up with ??? --> STILL no proof of NOT-AGW, while there's a 1000 times more money at stake for the oil-industry than for the scientists ... You can bet the scientists have less budget to 'prove' AGW than the oil industry has been using to delay any CO2-mitigating policies one way or the other. You can bet they tried to blow this story out of proportion.
The manufactured Climategate scandal was not an ad hominem.
attacking the scientists because they can't attack AGW? That's exactly what an Ad hominem is for.
PROOF! AGW can not be invalidated, so people try to attack the scientists. Ad_hominem
It's not an ad hominem to search for a suspect who commits a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
this blips in temperature happen for few hundred years for reasons out of the control of man.
are you sure about that: I thought man has been clearing forests on a large scale for millennia.
increased CO2 usually results in easier plant growth, automatically neutralizing (much? most? all?)
if you would ignore the large scale deforestation it will result in a stable system with a much higher concentration in CO2.
Since the sceptics do not demand precipitate action
WRONG the sceptics demand a continued rise in CO2 in the air. The scientists demand no further increases in CO2 concetrations.
indeed, the largest problem in nuclear power: humans, therefore: inherently unsafe.
dismissing the technological aspects and blaming it on human error
the human factor is inherently linked into technology.
I certainly can't change your mind
yes you can, show me hard abservable facts and a theory showing why the above doesn't work on a global scale.
there is no way you can convince me
ah ...
roof : 40 cm.
walls: 30 cm
cellar: 20 cm.
3-pane glass.
ditch the heating.