1. Home
  2. Woodworking Forum
  3. Tree growth rings disprove that the earth is warmer now than during Roman times and or even 1000 years ago.
  4. Page 4

Tree growth rings disprove that the earth is warmer now than during Roman times and or even 1000 years ago.

So what?!

No, it's not logical to conclude anything of the kind. You take it as faith; i.e. religion.

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

Your proof that they won't?

Reply to
krw

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:18:11 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Proof? It's happening right now in front of you. Sustainable water levels are disappearing in many places that had previously lush fertile soil.

My proof is plain common sense, something you continually appear to be lacking in large quantities.

Reply to
Dave

Quick! Bring back the smog!

Thanks for my daily laugh, Leon :-).

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

Dammit Han, you're being reasonable - that never works with this group :-).

As I've pointed out, whether or not the increase in CO2 is the major factor in warming, there's little dispute that it is a major factor in ocean acidification. If the base of the global food chain is disrupted, we won't care how warm it gets!

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

"real scientists" i.e. those who agree with Larry J :-).

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

--------------------------------- You buy them books, they eat the covers.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

------------------------------------ You buy them books, they are still eating the covers.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Now we won't. We don't do space any more. It's too expensive. And besides, the environmental impact of building and launching spacecraft wasn't good for out planet (or so say the greens).

Bottom line is simply this... there is no technical solution to such a problem, other than reducing the population radically. Nobody is going to volunteer to do that. Certainly not Al Gore.

The "obvious" conclusions that people have come up with reflect serious framing errors (on both sides, I may add).

Comparing events of the last 10, 50, 100 years, when the patterns have run for hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of years is always going to be misleading.

This is not about science. It's purely politics.

For what it's worth...

RIchard

Reply to
Richard

Larry, theories are just exactly that. Theories.

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory. They try to DIS-prove it. Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case. Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science. ;)

Richard

Reply to
Richard

Larry Jaques wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Well, they are. Production AND burning.

Reply to
Han

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Sorry, I don't do faith (others may do as they want). But I can read English and separate most facts from most fiction. I do cry wolf ...

Reply to
Han

---------------------------------- The market is taking care of that.

N/G is about 1/2 the cost of coal.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5008373f$0$1562 $c3e8da3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

Lew, English is my second language, can you explain what you mean in simpler language?

Reply to
Han

Larry Jaques wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I worry about that too, Larry. OTOH, that is an engineering and regulation problem. It can be done safely, I believe. But there needs to be oversight and punishment in case things go wrong. The main things are 4-fold (I'm a biochemist so I have absolutely no standing): First, the borehole should be warranteed to be free of defects, with the companies in charge responsible to the extent that they have to prove they are not responsible, rather than the "government" needing to prove they are. Second, the waste should be cleaned up and /properly/ disposed of. Again same conditions. Third, the fact that the water supply in the area was fine before fracking proves that fracking was responsible for it being fouled (if so) after fracking started, and again, same conditions. Fourth, any earthquakes and damage from them are the direct responsibility of the fracking companies.

Reply to
Han

"HeyBub" wrote in news:EfOdncsySN5hnZXNnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference that it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.

Reply to
Han

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:bb81f$50081f8a $4b75eb81$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:

Quick, someone with a remedy for black flies?

Reply to
Han

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:50084358$0$1243 $c3e8da3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

For the moment. There is a glut now, in part because of the mild winter. When supply and demand get into more of an equilibrium, nat gas prices will go up, and coal will come down. Although I don't mind cheap natural gas ...

Reply to
Han

Oh, but you do. Worse then the most devout Christain, you won't admit it to yourself.

Which causes people to laugh at you.

Reply to
krw

"Theory" doesn't mean what you think it does.

No, they try to disprove a "hypothesis". When they can't (for some time and effort spent) it may become a "theory".

Sure, but a disproof is often an expansion of the hypothesis. Newton wasn't wrong but Einstein expanded his theory.

Worse; simulation is being offered as reality.

Anything with "science" in its name, isn't.

Reply to
krw

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.