On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:44:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any
given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil
fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes.
The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by
combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric
CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured.

No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including
volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results.


Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are
Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from
forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent
and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have
been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply
because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both
frequency and intensity.

That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely
taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can
see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is
suggestive, but not conclusive.


No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product
of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon
monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes,
ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and
add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the
air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not
only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type
of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is
produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of
wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires
each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the
amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll,
the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much
vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends-
upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire,
etc, etc.

Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed.
You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete
the total picture.


So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that
absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability".
Yet another flip-flop.


In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which
are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually
a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of
professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption
has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of
greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an
eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight
away from the surface.

Yes, that true, but the effect of those volcanos on the total climate
is significant, and can disrupt the otherwise cyclic nature of the
climatic shifts.


But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The
current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a
century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole
while climbing a mountain pass.


I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are
scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more
than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave.

I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who
know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the
scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of
humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to
the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring
holes in the evidence.


What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses
into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from?
Not volcanos, that's for sure......

Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to
believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that
the global temperature is rising, and that we are the cause. The only
disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on
our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or
"climate change".


I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to
Twisty previously.


Post them if you want.


When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into
consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate
of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic
change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human
activity.


Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and
when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2
concentrations.

Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar
output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a
true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained.


You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of
tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of
the 11/22 year sunspot cycles.


Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow
a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output.


Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes,
but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise.


But there are
still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for
instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that
would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output.


A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's
effects, and usually only for a cycle or two.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.


Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?

I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.


Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.


I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention
of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have
been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think
that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does
my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of
things.


Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your
proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub

Yea, like I'm going to reveal where I work.


Then don't. Black out the name of your employer.


, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses.

I already have pictures of both on my website. Next?


See below.....


So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it.

So you say. We have only your word for that.


I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU.

No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF)
graduated from EWU.


Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call
it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and
boat and call it your's, right? Get a clue already..... my middle
initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have
graduated from EWU. Do you?


Second, every school is prevented by
law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a
student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold
the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied.

If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave
Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name)
attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure?


How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your
boat? I don't. You are just making more excuses.


Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you
smell......


Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact
remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your
education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine.

Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a
lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie.


And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class.

I learn something every day. And I APPLY it to the bottom line.


On the contrary, you tried to denounce me
with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions.

Which is exactly what you did.


Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or
logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs".

You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are
simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda
driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain
certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are
hardly the only explanation.


Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't
learned how to tell the difference between them.

No, I just illustrated the difference. It is you who don't know the
difference, since most of your so-called "facts" especially in the
political arena, are really nuggets of fact wrapped in a layer of
speculative conclusion.


I told you a long time ago that you need to throw away the wrapping
and focus on those "nuggets of fact". Instead, you throw away the
facts just because you don't like the wrapping. That's your fault, not
mine.


Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies.


Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in
logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical
arguments

What? You last set was full of fallacies. Your favorites are false
analogies, denying the antecedent, and argumentum infinitum, with a
smattering of straw man arguments thrown in for good measure.


Never used anything of the sort, and I invite you to post any argument
where you think such a fallacy was used by me.


. My offer to send you the Copi book still stands.

I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.


Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.
Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.


So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave?

On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank.


Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next
to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda.......


I've provided fact after fact after fact.

No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after
opinion.

All the facts I have
provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else
willing to do so.

Where?


Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where
to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable
skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library.

Translation: I cannot provide a specific example, so I will invoke yet
another logical fallacy "Ad hominem" , to add to the growing
repertoire.


I don't know if there is a fallacy that is specifically named for
ignoring previously referenced sources, but if there isn't I'll call
it the "Dave Hall #1". That's to go along with the "Dave Hall #2"
fallacy which is best described as semantic backpedalling. And the
"Dave Hall #3", aka the "flip-flop frenzy" -- you are so desperate to
make your case that you forget your previous arguments and end up
contradicting yourself. I should make a list.


You have provided nothing of the sort in -any-
topic.

I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what
I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most
cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and
twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the
smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove
the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that
shallow?


It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of
facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is
necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts
that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those
engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your
"tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your
"engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that
contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA.


Because the small exceptions to not invalidate the rule.


Not unless the exception is a -part- of the rule, dummy!


And posting
names of people is meaningless unless there is a common point of
reference.


More lame excuses.


.... No one is perfect. If the best you
can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of
posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage.


You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10
years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage.

I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect.
But I am right more than I'm wrong.


Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions.

No, history will show that you do. Especially when it comes to
political ideologies.


Well, -your- history of posting has shown that you have made far more
mistakes than you admit. And that is a fact, not an opinion.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----