RNG

One of the first truly balanced reports I have been exposed to. Thanks.

From Wiki: Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location[52]. * 1% can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[8] * At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[51] * At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory center, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[51]. Panic attacks may also occur at this concentration.[53][54] * At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[51] So what does it going from 0.028% to 0.036% matter?

Well said.

You are spot on about this being an important step when working with computer models. And you are spot on in your criticism. I'm more used to the term "history matching" rather than curve fitting, but the same thing, and it involves fudging the various parameters you can't measure till you get a fit. As a model gets more complex, the probability of a unique solution becomes less and less. To the best of my knowledge none of the climate models can include water vapor. At least this was true 3 years ago. And that is a huge lack. Till that is fixed, I am going to be hard to convince that conclusions coming from existing models are valid.

Would you call helium a poison? I'm not sure if 2 min of CO2 would be enough to kill you, at 100%. Equally well you don't down a Costco sized bottle of aspirin when you have a headache. A couple work great, a big bottle will kill you. But equally well, put your head in a bag of 100% helium for 5 min and you will be dead or darn close. That's oxygen deprivation. The whole CO2 is poisonous, at ppm levels is just silly.

I'm not beating the drum for global cooling, I'm using this and the mandating of lean-burn car engines in the '70's as an indication that current thinking can be wrong, and premature over reaction can be harmful.

Yes it has been, but that it was a concern, at least in the public's eye during the '70's is a fact. From: http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=a94b56a5-5df2-4982-ba0b-7724efb31338&p=2 t turns out that there were a number of articles in newspapers and popular magazines that alluded to the possibility of an impending ice age if the cooling trend since the 1940s continued. For example, the Globe and Mail ran a story on Dec. 10, 1974, titled "Does man trigger trouble in the world's climate cycle?", which stated that an ice age was one possible outcome of continued cooling. Time magazine was also a main proponent of the theory with its article "Another Ice Age?" published on June 24, 1974. These, by and large, occurred several years after the article by Rasool and Schneider was published. Obviously at the time there were a few scientists who held the opinion that the observed increase in human-produced aerosols was of sufficient concern to warrant action to mitigate against potential sustained cooling. The opinions of an outspoken few would have been received eagerly by a popular press looking for headline-grabbing stories to capture their readers' interest. Nevertheless, these opinions did not count as valid scientific analyses and so did not make it into the scientific literature.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. As I said, then, the media made money by sensationalizing things. Now, the media, some scientists and Al Gore make money by sensationalizing things. Is global warming happening? Probably. Is it due to man's presence? Possibly. Is CO2 the major baddy? I think the jury is out. As I have said before, I want to see water vapor and cloud cover included in the computer models used for the conclusions the IPCC types issue. I want a better understanding of the potential magnitude of the threat before policies are instituted that cause major economic disruptions. CO2 is bad for oceans. No question, but again, how bad how soon? Renewable energy sources need nurturing for all our good, including that of the economy as oil, a dwindling resource becomes more and more expensive. But over-reactions can be worse than laise faire in some cases.

The Wiki article does admit that the scientific community wasn't solidly behind it, but it was sensationalized in the MSM of the time as Wiki says. Just as I think the media are sensationalizing things now. That's how they make their money.

Been busy but here you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I did read it, and I disagree. I'm not in favor of prostitution. If my daughter was a prostitute I'd wail and moan and really be a bad bastard. But I also believe in personal freedoms, including the freedom to do things that a bunch of us don't like. As long as you aren't hurting another person, git it on!

I really don't understand your stance here. Some woman wants to get some money by letting a guy jump her bones. Some guy wants to get his rocks off in an uncomplicated manner. What's wrong with that assuming she isn't a sex-slave. And if it's legalized, the odds of that being the case drops dramatically.

I'm not withdrawing, i may have to actually go to a real library and get real paper shit, scan it and then post the pdf's, but I'm right on this one.

Let me buy you a tinfoil hat, then all will be well. If you want to spend time on this here interwebz thingy, you need to chill a bit.

I have been on a US based political message board for about 3 years. It is very interesting to me that a whole bunch of Dems have been caught playing hide the wienie with some other woman, but a whole bunch of Reps have been caught playing hide the wienie with some guy. Is there a message here?

Way too deep for me.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Global_cooling?t=4. Best I could do. It doesn't nail his butt to this cross but trust me, he was there. And I suppose you don't remember Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"?

Not sure if this here interwebz thingy carries data from that far back, but I am about to bust a gut to prove you wrong.

I was referencing the fact that many posters were stating that many hookers hook because of a drug addiction. (Happy 100th post to me.)

Japan has had like 10+ years of economic slowdown. The US is losing jobs to third world countries and are being overrun by illegal aliens. Such is life. Wish they had posted actual numbers. Is 27 like 20% lower than the top or 2%?

That's really unfortunate, because in my limited military knowledge, aren't they supposed to blow?

Doesn't the flaccid demand spur Viagra sales? That had to be an intentional pun, and I appreciated it enough to acknowledge it.

The first time I ever heard the name David Suzuki was in the '70's I think where he was warning us that we were all going to freeze to death because of particulates in the atmosphere. Guess he was wrong there too. My famous story. Chemists at UCLA showed that Los Angeles smog contained hydrocarbons. It had previously been shown without a doubt that the smog was directly related to motor vehicles. Smog was a big problem in LA at the time. So the US government passed a quick, kneejerk law that harshly limited hydrocarbon emissions of vehicles. This was about 1973, I believe. So the new cars come out and the smog problem in LA skyrockets. A little knowledge is dangerous. Yes, the smog contained a hydrocarbon tail. But every blade of grass, every leaf, every living critter on the face of the earth gave out these hydrocarbons. Here is the kicker. To cut down the hydrocarbons, the auto industry went to lean-burn engines. More air, less gas. The problem, as any mechanic will tell you is that lean-burn engines run very hot. When a car engine runs hotter, the high temp and pressure causes more NOX to be formed and emitted. And then the chemists found out that the NOX when hit by sunlight acted like a catalyst to form the smog. More NOX means more smog. So two years later the government in it's infinite wisdom legislated NOX limits and relaxed the hydrocarbon limits. Meanwhile, the auto industry had to do it's second major re-tool in two years. What a waste of money. Sucks to be you if you bought a car at any time then or shortly after, because you were paying a huge stupid tax. So be careful.

But the Portugal example with drug laws shows that with the decrease of stigma due to the decriminalization, more will access treatment.

From the tone of the OP, "she had her blue passport in her waving it". Is "her waving it" a new euphanism for naughty bits?