DMD 0.175 release

[Charles D Hixson]

David Medlock wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
> 
>> David Medlock wrote:
>>
>>> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 
>>> + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and 
>>> double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.
>>
>>
>> Please rephrase. There is plenty of evidence of CO2 caused by humans. 
>> There is no evidence of CO2 caused by humans, which you find convincing.
>>
>> Yet I think you've got your facts seriously wrong here. I've never 
>> heard anyone doubt the link between CO2 and humanity before. Likewise, 
>> the link between CO2 and direct effect on global temperature are also 
>> very well established; it's a very simple calculation.
>>
> What I meant was: there is no evidence human-caused Co2 is causing 
> global *catastrophic* climate change.  This is the basis of the Kyoto 
> protocols.

Does it really matter what's causing it, if we could do 
something to stop it, and we don't?

> 
> There are factors you just can't work into a calculation, Don.  Of 
> course humans produce C02, biologically and industrially.  Equating it 
> with global climate change is another issue.  People have calculated we 
> would run out of food before the 21st century too, that never happened 
> either.
> 
> I was wrong about the 1 degree C increase in the 1900s, it was 0.6 
> degrees Celsius(source:IPCC).  We have been keeping records since 1880.
> 
> www.junkscience.com  has some calculations to disprove the doom and 
> gloom.  They have a standing challenge for someone to prove it otherwise.
> 
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
I doubt the reliability of your chosen source.

> 
> Five or ten years of data is almost nothing in terms of historical 
> weather.  You need at least 30 to 50 to make any valid conclusions.  You 
> know what, 30 years ago they were talking global cooling and a coming 
> ice age!

There will be a next ice age.  The big melt comes first.

> 
> In the 1600s a plant was weighed, then watered for 5 years.  In that 
> time the plant increased from 5 to 169 lbs, but the soil remained the 
> same weight.  This means the weight came from water, C02 and sunlight.
> 
> Experiments on plants have shown that even at C02 levels of 30,000 ppm 
> there was no negative effects. (Wittwer and Robb, 1964)

I've seen several reports that dispute this.  Some plants will 
grow better than others in high CO2 environments.  (One of the 
beneficiaries is poison ivy...it also becomes equipped with a 
more concentrated poison.)  Most plants will have fewer 
vitamins and minerals per ounce.  May be good for the plants, 
but not for us.

> 
> Logically the conclusion is that the ecosystem is quite capable of 
> adapting to increased C02 levels.

??  Well, yes, given sufficient time and freedom to move.  Of 
course a large number of species will go extinct in the 
process, but given enough time new species will arise.  That 
seems a very strange position for a person to take, however, 
as "enough time" is in the millions of years.

> 
> Given that and the less than one-degree temperature increase in the last 
> 100 years, why exactly should I pay double(or more) for my fuels/goods?
> Why should progress be stagnated over what is just a theory?
> 
> Why are countries like India and China left out of Kyoto, they will soon 
> be the major contributors to C02 emissions?  Why was this year a 
> nonexistant hurricane season?

Weather is variable from year to year.  A single year doesn't 
prove ANYTHING.  (Neither does a warm autumn in Finland.  But 
if you already believe, you may see it as an indicator.)

> 
> Believe what you will, but don't confuse consensus and politics with 
> science.
> 
> Sorry for the off-topic thread. I will cease posting to this topic now.
> 
> -DavidM