DMD 0.175 release

[David Medlock]

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.

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/

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!

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)

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

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?

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