Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

[tango]

Sorry, tango, but the fact that sample dust wasn't under control is very much a valid critique.

For that matter, they're not very specific about where it came from and how they solicited donations for the study.

Another sample was collected from the apartment building

at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm

on 9/12/2001.

That's pretty specific. What more do you need to know except the location, person, time, date?

And how else do you explain the presence of highly sophisticated, not publicly available substance, only recently developed and patented within the US government?

Please read the report more thoroughly. Your concerns are addressed.

It's clear the report is raising more hackles than legitimate criticisms.

"Screw you" ? How very scientific of bushcheney!

Edited April 19, 2009 by tango

[bush_cheney2004]

Please read the report more thoroughly. Your concerns are addressed.

No...reading the report over and over will not change my opinion. This from another forum almost two years ago:

So let's do the math.

Let's say we need 100 tonnes = 100,000kgs. We can smuggle in and install 100gms per person per day, and there are 10 people in on the deal. That means 1kg per day will be put into each WTC. At that rate, it would take 100,000 days, that is 274 years, to install the required amount of nano-thermite. That's if they never stop for even a day.

Yep, that sure sounds plausible.

It's clear the report is raising more hackles than legitimate criticisms.

Clear only to you.

"Screw you" ? How very scientific of bushcheney!

Thank you....don't assume what I have read or have not read.

Edited April 19, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

That's pretty specific. What more do you need to know except the location, person, time, date?

Why this person trained in collecting such samples. What precautions to prevent contamination were taken? Is this person trusthworthy?

It's clear the report is raising more hackles than legitimate criticisms.

So lets heat why this report is more meaningful than the evidence from the Roswell Incident? Or do you believe the government is covering up UFOs too?

The message you are getting from various people is the evidence is meaningless without direct evidence that the bombs were planted. You can rant and rave about how good you think this report is but it won't change the fact that you need a lot more direct evidence to establish that anything other than a terrorist attack occurred on 9/11.

[tango]

No...reading the report over and over will not change my opinion. This from another forum almost two years ago:

So let's do the math.

Let's say we need 100 tonnes = 100,000kgs. We can smuggle in and install 100gms per person per day, and there are 10 people in on the deal. That means 1kg per day will be put into each WTC. At that rate, it would take 100,000 days, that is 274 years, to install the required amount of nano-thermite. That's if they never stop for even a day.

Yep, that sure sounds plausible.

Clear only to you.

Thank you....don't assume what I have read or have not read.

Oh I see. You are hypothesizing a small group of independent terrorists?

That hadn't occurred to me.

I just assumed it would be inside - the CIA - who would have access to bring in pallets and pallets of the stuff, and stash it on secure floors - the floors reserved for 'infrastructure'.

That's been the theory from the beginning, I think.

To maximize destruction of a terrorist attack, about which they had foreknowledge.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh I see. You are hypothesizing a small group of independent terrorists?

That hadn't occurred to me.

Of course not.

I just assumed it would be inside - the CIA - who would have access to bring in pallets and pallets of the stuff, and stash it on secure floors - the floors reserved for 'infrastructure'.

Find out what a column access cover and spandrel are first.

That's been the theory from the beginning, I think.

To maximize destruction of a terrorist attack, about which they had foreknowledge.

There you have it folks....the complete conspiracy explained without any other possibilities. So much for "science" and "engineering".

Edited April 19, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

I just got around to this thread, and after quickly skimming through, I think you are making the same mistake that ID advocates and climate change deniers are fond of doing: finding one or two cranks with some sort of credentials to add legitimacy to arguments that cannot explain all the available evidence; so the strategy is limited to looking for weaknesses in the theory that the majority of experts agree with.

In the case of this 9/11 truther -- before making claims that thermite residue has to be the result of a controlled demolition, why didn't he take a look at other facts about the collapse of the buildings, and see if they fit the pattern of a controlled demolition, or whether the videos of the collapse more closely match the slower, pancaking effect as upper floors collapse and take out each floor on the way down. Do the videos and other features of the towers' collapse match the claims of controlled demolition? From what I've seen, the majority of structural engineer, metallurgists, and even demolition experts who do this sort of thing for a living, say the evidence for demolition doesn't pass the smell test. How does Steve Jones and the other 9/11 truthers explain why debris and broken columns are falling faster than the collapsing building, if it was really a free-fall collapse:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

This is a brand new report, authored by several academics with good credentials, in a respectable peer-reviewed journal.

I can't speak on the issue of their scientific credentials, but I discovered this objection to open access scientific journals like Bentham :

Bentham's flavor of open access publishing is a for-profit venture, and it seems to me organized for profit rather than for scientific or scholarly contribution. The submission fees are too high as far as I am concerned, and I just don't see that Bentham has serious experience in scholarly or scientific publishing.

Few of these journals can have serious impact. Several Bentham journals appear be indexed only in Directory of Open Access Journals as well as Google and Google Scholar. DOAJ is a reference valuable tool, but it is not an index based on any factor other than the fact that a journal is available free on the web. And who on earth would claim articles are "indexed" in Google and Google Scholar? These are search engines, not indexes.

If you'd like a good list of current journals, we'll soon be releasing a widely accessible version of our recent study on design journals. We did it to assist the response of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design to the government's Excellence in Research for Australia initiative. Preliminary results went out a month ago, and we are now preparing a better and more useful draft with added information before extending and deepening the study. This lists some 200 or so journals, and among our 300+ informants, none mentioned any journal published by Bentham.

http://www.nabble.com/Be-careful-with-Bent...td19446213.html

What this sounds like to me is that Bentham is doing the equivalent of self-publishing -- where anybody willing to pay in advance can claim to be an author and get their book published! If these guys, or someone fronting them, put up the money to get their study published, and there are serious concerns about Bentham's peer review process, then the journals could be as worthless as supermarket tabloids.

It is analysis of a variety of donated dust samples from the WTC collapse, pretty hard data and can be replicated by independent researchers.

But does that necessarily mean it has to be from explosives? Since other evidence doesn't fit a theory of controlled definition, it's worth getting a 2nd opinion about the value of Jones's research:

Abstract: A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology.

The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings.

* Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum;

* alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C;

* photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings;

* DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.

The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.

These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.

The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/a...claimed-in.html

It is certainly worth demanding a more complete and unbiased investigation than has been done to date.

Of all the things that need to be investigated, like fake WMD evidence, illegal wiretapping, secret prisons, torture, disappearance and presumed death of about 30 detainees - why waste time on flimsy conspiracy theories? Especially in this day and age, when the news cycle and the public at large can only follow one major story at a time.

Our soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan because of this. We owe them the truth.

Sounds like the "teach the controversy argument" that creationists use to confuse the public, and give a false impression that the there is a heated division among the experts. Evidence for an inside 9/11 conspiracy is flimsy at best, and diverts from suspected malfeasance such as the phony WMD reports and the suppression of contrary evidence during the buildup to war.

[Riverwind]

I think you are making the same mistake that ID advocates and climate change deniers are fond of doing: ...

Actually, I think climate alarmists have a lot in common with 9/11 truthies.

On one side we have:

1) We found residue that could have come from thermite. We can't think of anything else that could have produced it so we assume that it must have come from a bomb.

On the other we have:

2) We found evidence of warming that could have come from CO2. We can't think of anything else that could have produced it so we assume that it must have been caused by CO2.

If both cases you have groups of people insisting on turning an assumption into a fact and ridiculing people who point out that the claim is an *assumption* and not fact.

Now you could argue that the assumptions made by the alarmists are more reasonable than the assumptions made by the truthies but that does not changed the inherent illogic of the claim (i.e. insisting that an assumption must be treated as a fact).

Edited April 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Actually, I think climate alarmists have a lot in common with 9/11 truthies.

On one side we have:

1) We found residue that could have come from thermite. We can't think of anything else that could have produced it so we assume that it must have come from a bomb.

On the other we have:

2) We found evidence of warming that could have come from CO2. We can't think of anything else that could have produced it so we assume that it must have been caused by CO2.

I don't want to wander too far down the global warming debate; my point is that the deniers are in the minority of expert opinion. Most climatologists believe that the evidence is now insurmountable that natural cycles cannot explain the rising temperatures, rising sea levels and glacier retreats that are going on. The majority believe that the evidence for human impact on climate can no longer be denied. The same dissenters are constantly in front of the cameras speaking on behalf of groups who have a vested interest in denying man-made climate change. To me, that makes them similar to the Discovery Institute and the 9/11 truthers.

And just like the other fringe groups, the deniers don't bother putting together a consistent theory of climate cycles. For example, if there is no connection between warming temperatures and rising CO2 rates, does the do-nothing carbon strategy make sense in light of the fact that rising atmospheric CO2 levels raise ocean acidification levels, because of the fact that the oceans are a carbon sink which absorb about half of the carbon dioxide that is produced each year:

Ocean Becoming More Acidic, Potentially Threatening Marine Life

Ocean Dead Zones Likely To Expand: Increasing Carbon Dioxide And Decreasing Oxygen Make It Harder For Deep-sea Animals To Breath

Whatever The Warming, Ocean Acidifies From Carbon-dioxide Buildup

Denying that there are any dangers to increasing CO2 levels doesn't make any sense, because even if there was no connection between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, the destruction of the world's oceans should be enough reason by themselves to make a case for reducing CO2 levels. Even if there were no other adverse effects, killing off ocean life will mean the end of the human race as well. Just like the 9/11 truthers, climate change deniers focus on one aspect of climate -- the greenhouse effect. This mindset is lethal, considering how complex and multifaceted climate cycles are.

[Riverwind]

BTW - you are one who felt it was necessary to associate 9.11 truthers with AGW sceptics.

I don't want to wander too far down the global warming debate; my point is that the deniers are in the minority of expert opinion.

So? If that is your only argument you don't have an argument. Most breakthroughs in science are made by people who have minority opinion. Being in the minority does not mean one is wrong.

The case against 9/11 truthers can be made without restorting to an appeal to authority.

And just like the other fringe groups, the deniers don't bother putting together a consistent theory of climate cycles.

Again so what? AGW sceptics don't believe that we know enough about climate to have a consistent theory that explains everything. It is the AGW alarmists that are making over reaching claims based on little evidence (just like truthers),

More importantly, there is a huge difference between making claims about a single event that occurred (9/11) and competing claims about what might happen in the future. There is an overwhelming amount of *verifiable facts* that supports the "concensus" theory on what happened on 9/11. To be plausible truthers have to address all of those facts.

OTOH, AGW alarmists have almost no data that unambigiously actually supports their claims. All they have is evidence that the planet has warmed and a theory that blames all unexplained warming on CO2.

The last point is important to understand. Alarmists have a basic theory which is supported by physics. This theory suggests we will get 1 degC of warming from CO2. The trouble only shows up when the alarmists start attributing feedbacks which amplify the CO2. The process they use to determine the amount of feedback is quite simple: if we don't understand what caused something then it must be a CO2 feedback.

That thought process is what the truthies have in common with alarmists. If something is not understood then it must be attributed to something that is understood. Neither group is willing to accept that some questions cannot be answered with the data available and that the lack of an alternate explanation does not mean that one does not exist.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[WIP]

BTW - you are one who felt it was necessary to associate 9.11 truthers with AGW sceptics.

The deniers are the guys on the fringe, not the ones representing the broad consensus of scientists who study climate processes and monitor the changes that are occuring.

So? If that is your only argument you don't have an argument. Most breakthroughs in science are made by people who have minority opinion. Being in the minority does not mean one is wrong.

And just like the 9/11 truthers and the Discovery Institute, they have the burden of proving their claims and overturing the established general opinion.

OTOH, AGW alarmists have almost no data that unambigiously actually supports their claims. All they have is evidence that the planet has warmed and a theory that blames on unexplained warming on CO2.

Unless you are also denying that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, that the oceans absorb about half of the CO2 added to the atmosphere, and the resulting effects of ocean acidification and growing dead zones, you need to explain why you want nothing done about increasing carbon dioxide levels.

[Riverwind]

And just like the 9/11 truthers and the Discovery Institute, they have the burden of proving their claims and overturing the established general opinion.

Actually no. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary demands base on limited evidence. The 9/11 truthies are accusing the government of being composed of unspeakably evil people. The people who claim that CO2 represents an immediate danger are demanding that the majority of people make huge economic sacrifices. Neither example has provided anything close to the evidence required to justify their demands.

Unless you are also denying that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, that the oceans absorb about half of the CO2 added to the atmosphere, and the resulting effects of ocean acidification and growing dead zones, you need to explain why you want nothing done about increasing carbon dioxide levels.

I would not amputate my leg because I could theoretically could get cancer at some point in the future. Eliminating CO2 emissions is no different than amputating a leg. In fact, eliminating CO2 emissions will condemn billions of people to a life of poverty and misery that they would not otherwise have to face. That is why the only people who care about AGW are naive yuppies who think the problem could be solved by buying a few carbon offsets.

If you believe that radical action is required your are going to need a little more than a hypothesis with suggest their might be a problem in the future.

Edited:

A contrast with evolution is useful here. Evolution, like AGW, is a reasonable scientific theory. Evolution only becomes a problem if advocates use to justify policies like eugenics. In other words, the onus of proof rests with the people advocating action - not with the people who simply advocate an idea.

This implies that there is nothing wrong with the truthies advocating thier crazy theories - it only becomes a problem when they start demanding that the rest of society put up with them by sponsering inquires and/or persecution of 'guilty' people.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

And how else do you explain the presence of highly sophisticated, not publicly available substance, only recently developed and patented within the US government?

tango - I'm still not sure how this sample got from the person who donated it to the researchers. Did they put an ad in the paper saying they were investigating 9/11 conspiracies ?

And... even if the substance proves to be thermite, you can't say "how else do you explain..." in order to *conclude* that it was a conspiracy.

All you have is another unexplained mystery.

[benny]

While Y is a worst event for you than X, you can be fooled on Y because you are searching the truth on X (here X stands for the 9/11 attacks).

[KrustyKidd]

I wonder if this will even make the mainstream news.

Doubt it. Thermite welding is used in building construction. To not have any thermite residue would be grounds for the biggest building code litigation in history.

[benny]

Doubt it. Thermite welding is used in building construction. To not have any thermite residue would be grounds for the biggest building code litigation in history.

The biggest building code litigation in history could similarly have been the lack of fire repellant means in Rome in 64 A.D. when it was burned down (by Nero ?) so that the Christians could be accused of the fire and then persecuted.

[WIP]

Actually no. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary demands base on limited evidence.

Is it really an extraordinary claim to make, that humans have had an influence on climate? Long before the Industrial Revolution, there was overwhelming evidence that humans had caused mass extinctions and turned forests into grasslands, and grasslands into deserts because of agriculture. Why should it be an extraordinary claim that the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 measurements is caused by human activity, and that the natural greenhouse effect that carbon dioxide has, will affect the climate? The extraordinary claims are that we are having no impact on our world despite our population and exploitation of natural resources -- that's the claim I find hard to believe.

We get a steady stream of reports of collapsing ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland, and these are coming at a time of almost non-existent sunspot activity -- just what many of the AGW deniers have told us was the link to global temperatures. In a few short years, the sun will be going back into an active cycle, so what can we expect then when temperatures are still increasing now?

I would not amputate my leg because I could theoretically could get cancer at some point in the future.

And what about carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans! Poisoning the world's oceans should be considered a cancer, and reason enough to take action now!

Eliminating CO2 emissions is no different than amputating a leg. In fact, eliminating CO2 emissions will condemn billions of people to a life of poverty and misery that they would not otherwise have to face.

Third world countries in the tropics are already facing increasingly severe droughts and floods because of the increased energy in the planet's weather systems, so what kind of favour are you guys doing them by making severe weather-created famines a feature of their already difficult lives?

If you believe that radical action is required your are going to need a little more than a hypothesis with suggest their might be a problem in the future.

The prospect of failure looks much more serious now that Kyoto targets are either ignored or nations signing on have had to buy their way out through the carbon credits purchase scheme. The likelihood that the nations will not do enough before it is too late is where my skepticism comes in!

A contrast with evolution is useful here. Evolution, like AGW, is a reasonable scientific theory. Evolution only becomes a problem if advocates use to justify policies like eugenics. In other words, the onus of proof rests with the people advocating action - not with the people who simply advocate an idea.

Eugenics was advocated before Darwin and the theory of natural selection was proposed. It's real origins come from the study of selective breeding of animals that had been done for centuries, and the results were extrapolated to humans. The claims that eugenics is based on evolutionary theory are bogus, since American and Nazi advocates of eugenics did not get their ideas from studying Origin of the Species.

This implies that there is nothing wrong with the truthies advocating thier crazy theories - it only becomes a problem when they start demanding that the rest of society put up with them by sponsering inquires and/or persecution of 'guilty' people.

It would certainly be a more serious situation if some future government uses their theories to form government policy. A situation something like this happened in South Africa, when they elected a president who believed the theories of a fringe group that denied a connection between HIV and AIDS.

As long as it is not a matter of public policy, they are free to advance their claims, and those of us who are unconvinced, are free to raise objections to their findings and the methods they use to arrive at their conclusions.

[benny]

The link I see between AGW and 9/11 is that our rulers have stopped to cunningly push their subjects to wage wars when they noticed that they could accumulate wealth more easily by abusing nature more directly through the work of their subjects.

Edited April 19, 2009 by benny

[tango]

Did Bush give it away?

The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...hitehouse01.htm

Edited April 19, 2009 by tango

[Peter F]

Did Bush give it away?

He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping. [/i]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...hitehouse01.htm

So why the wait to set off the thermite? and why wasn't the lower floors blown first?

The allegation is silly. The results of torture I suspect.

[Riverwind]

Is it really an extraordinary claim to make, that humans have had an influence on climate?

Sure human influence climate whenever they chop down a forest or build a city. But that is not what you are claiming you are claiming that 1) CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and 2) if these emissions are not stopped immediately then drastic change will occur in the near future.

What makes your claim implausible is it is unprecedented. i.e. you are claiming that something will occur that has *never* occurred before. More importantly, you are demanding massive economic sacrifices paid mostly by the poor in order to stop a catastrophe that has *never* occurred before. These claims are extraordinary and require an extraordinary level of evidence which has not been provided.

Long before the Industrial Revolution, there was overwhelming evidence that humans had caused mass extinctions and turned forests into grasslands, and grasslands into deserts because of agriculture.

Long before humans nature caused the same things. Is is extraordinary to believe that nature is the primary driver behind any observed changes to climate?

We get a steady stream of reports of collapsing ice sheets in...

Basic physics tells us that growing ice sheets melt more. The idea that the ice sheets are shrinking instead of growing as the physics normally predict is is fantasy created by computer model.

And what about carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans!

Zero evidence that the real biological systems cannot adapt. An 4 billion years of evidence that nothing we do will take the oceans outside of their historical ranges.

Third world countries in the tropics are already facing increasingly severe droughts and floods because of the increased energy in the planet's weather systems

More feverish fantasies by alarmists. There is no conclusive evidence to support any such claim. The evidence that does exist is so shoddy that even a truthie would be embarrassed to use it.

A situation something like this happened in South Africa, when they elected a president who believed the theories of a fringe group that denied a connection between HIV and AIDS.

Exactly. The problem is not the ideas it is what people what to do with the ideas. The higher the cost of acting on the idea the higher threshold for evidence.

In the case of AIDS/HIV there was little cost to acting on the science even if it was not certain. In the case of CO2 acting on it will either be ineffective or so costly that billions will be forced into poverty. That means the standard of evidence is much much higher. So far it that standard has not been met. The same argument applies to 9/11 truthies who are accusing Bush of mass murder of his own citizens. Another extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

What is most noticeable in this affair is that Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have seen the end of their scientific careers. Politics is everywhere when it comes to subsidizing or preventing scientific research. It will be impossible to advance this science debate without financing a research program.

[tango]

tango - I'm still not sure how this sample got from the person who donated it to the researchers. Did they put an ad in the paper saying they were investigating 9/11 conspiracies ?

Read the paper and find out.

[benny]

Recall also that William Rodriguez, a survivor, a hero and a janitor there, had heard an explosion before the plane hit the first Tower.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-58...lient=firefox-a

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=386...lient=firefox-a

[WIP]

Sure human influence climate whenever they chop down a forest or build a city. But that is not what you are claiming you are claiming that 1) CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and

No I didn't! How many times have I mentioned the reports of melting permafrost freeing up vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere! It's not a competition between greenhouse gases; CO2 has been measured for a long time now, and its effects are better understood than methane -- but it doesn't matter which one is the worse environmental threat -- they're both increasing.

2) if these emissions are not stopped immediately then drastic change will occur in the near future.

I've asked you a number of times before if there is an upper limit to CO2 levels or other greenhouse gases. Many years ago in high school, I learned that carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect -- does that effect remain static even when CO2 levels increase?

What makes your claim implausible is it is unprecedented. i.e. you are claiming that something will occur that has *never* occurred before.

And when did we ever have 7 billion people before? When was an animal species ever exploiting the earth's natural resources in a manner that is unsustainable before? A lot of things are unprecedented, and one of them is that there are enough of us, and we are exploiting the earth's natural resources enough to have an effect on climate.

More importantly, you are demanding massive economic sacrifices paid mostly by the poor in order to stop a catastrophe that has *never* occurred before. These claims are extraordinary and require an extraordinary level of evidence which has not been provided.

Now, that is total bullshit! Take away the direct and indirect subsidies that oil, gas and coal companies enjoy and give the tax incentives to the companies that are designing and building windmills, solar panels, geothermal and wave power systems. The poor, that you are so worried about, are sacrificing more by following the present course of action. If it's about helping the poor, why isn't some money invested in Indian efforts to get rid of crude cooking stoves that are the main source of Indian-produced carbon emissions and give off huge quantities of carbon soot in India's major cities, that ruins the health and shortens the life spans of the poorest city dwellers. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution would help the poorest people in the world -- doing nothing will further degrade their quality of life.

Basic physics tells us that growing ice sheets melt more. The idea that the ice sheets are shrinking instead of growing as the physics normally predict is is fantasy created by computer model.

No they don't! The Greenland ice sheets are getting thinner and moving faster because the melting leaves liquid water at the base of the glaciers, allowing them to slide more quickly into the sea.

Zero evidence that the real biological systems cannot adapt. An 4 billion years of evidence that nothing we do will take the oceans outside of their historical ranges.

Oh brother! Have you heard of mass extinctions? And how badly do you want to see one in your lifetime? There are no historical ranges for the oceans any more than there are average atmospheric temperatures. There is no natural equilibrium here. Paleontologists studying the late Permian Extinction have found that the effects on the world's oceans were the most severe, with more than 96% of ocean species becoming extinct.

[Riverwind]

Now, that is total bullshit! Take away the direct and indirect subsidies that oil, gas and coal companies enjoy and give the tax incentives to the companies that are designing and building windmills, solar panels, geothermal and wave power systems.

Gee. Why don't we fund some perpetual motion machines while we are at it?

The biggest problem with the AGW alarmists is they do not have a clue what is involved in creating and distributing the energy we need and they seem to think that the only thing stopping renewables is political will and a alot of money. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels and it is huge waste of money pretending to try. They can supplement fossil fuels but no one wants to talk about that option because the AGW alarmists insist we have to get rid of them entirely.

Indian efforts to get rid of crude cooking stoves[/url] that are the main source of Indian-produced carbon emissions and give off huge quantities of carbon soot in India's major cities, that ruins the health and shortens the life spans of the poorest city dwellers.

A wonderful device that illustrates why every dollar spent on CO2 is wasted because other types of pollution have a bigger impact on human health. More importantly, pollution like soot is relatively easy to deal with because it is the result of an inefficient process that can be improved. CO2, OTOH, is an intrinsic result of the process and cannot be eliminated without finding a new process.

BTW, soot was not recognized as a 'warming agent' until recently. Yet despite the fact that people now claim that up to 50% of the recent warming was caused by soot no one seems to realize that means that less warming can be attributed to CO2. This, in turn, means that CO2 must have a smaller effect than previously claimed. In fact, I believe I actually provided you a link to the black carnon paper in question which you promptly dismissed since it undermined your need to believe in the CO2 hysteria.

In any case, these issues are distraction from the point in this thread. The cost and consequences of eliminating CO2 are huge and would divert resources away from many more important things. For reason, it is up to the AGW alarmists to provide convince and unambiguous evidence that they really is a concern that requires immediate action. So far the evidence is nothing but hand waving with computer models and a bunch of wild ass guesses from paleo studies. If you want action then you need to find evidence that there really is a problem. Just like the 9/11 truthies need a lot more than thermite resisdue if they want anyone to take them seriously.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Riverwind