Re: Simple questions


"Bill Ward" <bward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.04.08.02.06.735424@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:42:35 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:


Good stuff, Kevin.

I'd like to see an explanation for omitting the CO2 measurements that
didn't agree with their AGW hypothesis. If you haven't already seen
Figure 3 in the following paper, it's worth a look. It shows 19th
century CO2 levels, reconstructed from 90,000 data points. They were
derived by chemical analysis, well documented, considered to be +-3%
accurate.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski

I expect to hear the usual "No, it's not!"'s from the alarmists now.

Strawman.

Bill Ward

Don't you see? The whole GW thing is anybody's pick and chose. I prefer
not to 'believe'. Do you get that?

If a carbon tax goes into effect, it will make the "oil for food" scandal
look like an ice cream social. It's not just that the money is taken from
the private sector, it's the stifling social projects it would be spent on
that do the most damage.

So I've been looking at the issue, starting as an agnostic, but becoming
more and more convinced that the whole AGW threat is bogus. One of the
glaring points is the extreme defensiveness of the believers. If they
were sincere, you would think they would welcome questions from skeptics,
taking the opportunity to explain the evidence and analysis that has
convinced them.

They don't. Instead they insult, demean, obfuscate, and try to declare
"victory" by consensus. That didn't look like science to me, and the more
I check it out, the worse it looks. So it's not a matter of "belief" for
me, but a conscious effort to sort out what's going on and why.


And it is a total bull*** diversion of attention to our real
challenges. But then, do you think quality of debt and peak oil are in
the same, "No, it's not!", bag????????

Not really. Unless Gold's abiotic oil hypothesis turns out to be true,
oil is a limited resource, and will have a finite lifetime. I don't know
when it will run out, but as long as the free market (with futures
trading) is allowed to work, I believe there will be a fairly smooth
transition rather than a shock. The people in the business have the best
data on quantity remaining, and will raise the price to reduce demand and
maximize profit. That may be happening now, for all I know.

What it will transition to, I don't know for sure. I suspect it will be
nuclear, CTL, and/or marine biofuels, but there are smarter people than me
who will make a lot of money picking the winner(s). I don't share your
faith in "strong global leaders" - I'd rather have good old greed working
for me anytime.

CTL? Sorry, don't recognise the acronym? What is CTL?

Kev


I agree that the AGW is a diversion - I think it's an attempt to
panic people into allowing a power grab by some of those very leaders.
Some seem to be neo-Luddites, wanting to take us back to the halcyon days
of yore, when only the very rich could afford to travel and enjoy the
nicer things in life, and the peons were kept in their place.


What do the numbers tell you?

For a while we'll be spending more than we want to on oil. Then people
will get tired of paying so much and will conserve, reducing their usage.
At some point, different non-alternative sources will be developed that
will take over a gradually increasing share of the energy market.

As far as quality of debt, you're talking to the wrong guy. I can't even
tell the difference between conservation and demand destruction, remember?

Thanks for your response.

Regards,

Bill Ward






.

Quantcast