tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post3548492653614571555..comments2008-05-10T15:37:35.312-07:00Victoria Taft, 5pm-8pm KPAM 860noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-3306976862319312542008-05-10T15:37:00.000-07:002008-05-10T15:37:00.000-07:002008-05-10T15:37:00.000-07:00

You have no idea how pleased I am to hear it. If you can't win outright, confuse. :D

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-45071046446817515872008-05-10T14:47:00.000-07:002008-05-10T14:47:00.000-07:002008-05-10T14:47:00.000-07:00

No Keith,Your lack of ability to see correlation, where it is so obvious to me, has me just baffled enough, that I am not going to argue this with you anymore.

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-40631311352252197982008-05-10T10:21:00.000-07:002008-05-10T10:21:00.000-07:002008-05-10T10:21:00.000-07:00

Eileen, do you even understand the argument I'm advancing? I'm starting to seriously wonder about that. You bring up examples that have nothing to do with what I'm proposing then ask questions irrelevant to my proposition. So maybe you ought to go back and read carefully until you actually know what's being argued. Then we can discuss whether my proposition has merit.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-4470324276093427362008-05-09T23:21:00.000-07:002008-05-09T23:21:00.000-07:002008-05-09T23:21:00.000-07:00

That is rather humorous Keith,This argument has just gone full circle, and we are back to graphs.Someone else shows graphs, and you argue that correlation is not causation. Then what do you use to try to show that your argument is correct?My little observation subset, things like people running their GHG producing vehicles longer when it is colder, is very real.Why do you belittle it.Have I

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-22848960467185323202008-05-08T15:57:00.000-07:002008-05-08T15:57:00.000-07:002008-05-08T15:57:00.000-07:00

Feel free to hold that your tiny subset of reality is an accurate representation of a historical global trend. No skin off my nose if you desire to believe something that is clearly not the case.GHG concentration graph since 1960http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svgWorld population growth, same periodhttp://www.un.org/news/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7883.doc.htmIncrease in

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-47929591879227004692008-05-08T00:03:00.000-07:002008-05-08T00:03:00.000-07:002008-05-08T00:03:00.000-07:00

No Keith,I asked for data to show YOUR claim, not my claim.Remember, mine is based on the fact that my own observations contradict your claim. You claim that your claim is based on historical data.This puts you in a position to easily alter my view, with real data (since I know that my observations are a small subset of reality).But without data to show me that my observations are not a

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-31202239144256723452008-05-07T12:51:00.000-07:002008-05-07T12:51:00.000-07:002008-05-07T12:51:00.000-07:00

'Course not. That would open his opinions up to commonsense criticisms.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-52084309122432513072008-05-07T10:16:00.000-07:002008-05-07T10:16:00.000-07:002008-05-07T10:16:00.000-07:00

Keith,David claims that his time is too valuable to dicuss this topic with you or anyone else for that matter. There are 27 comments from David out of 71 not including this comment. That is approximately 38% of the total number of posts and his posts generally are long in length.In your opinion has he ever taken the time to translate the science in everyday terms of has just quoted the IPCC

Kodiakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06512900137134891375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-49298998081014817152008-05-06T23:54:00.000-07:002008-05-06T23:54:00.000-07:002008-05-06T23:54:00.000-07:00

There's no reference needed to prove a commonsense assertion, much like you don't need to cite sources to prove that the sun rises in the east. Warmer climate is conductive to population growth. Population growth, and the attendent increase in human acitivites and resource requirements, produces higher levels of GHGs than were previously present when there was a lower population. Sheesh, Eileen..

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-48103625297838032082008-05-06T23:49:00.000-07:002008-05-06T23:49:00.000-07:002008-05-06T23:49:00.000-07:00

So... I'm responsible for doing the research to prove your (unsourced and uncited) claim. Brilliant. And you expect me to take you seriously? Sorry, David, you don't get the privilage of being taken seriously when you dismissively demand that someone else do the work to track down your sources and prove your claims.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-10595828543725360412008-05-06T18:10:00.000-07:002008-05-06T18:10:00.000-07:002008-05-06T18:10:00.000-07:00

Keith,We are talking about human behavior, specifically, based on your claim that increased temperature, is causing increased human behavior, of the sort that produces GHGs.Now all of the sudden, I am talking about human behavior in response to weather?Huh?Yea, when talking about scientific models, and climate change, predicting the actual weather on any given day is not part of the model.When I

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-35646927415007924952008-05-06T15:23:00.000-07:002008-05-06T15:23:00.000-07:002008-05-06T15:23:00.000-07:00

Keith,As I wrote, you need to do some serious study of atmospheric chemistry. It is too long and too complex to repeat here. But you need to understand how the measurements of the various isotopes of carbon prove where the carbon is coming from.Climate scientists thought through all this decades ago. As an amateur, you are very unlikely to undo their professional results. These guys are good, as

David Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-10910563180611230192008-05-06T01:29:00.000-07:002008-05-06T01:29:00.000-07:002008-05-06T01:29:00.000-07:00

1. Generally true.2. Dependent upon the source. Heat pumps produce no GHG's, propane/natural gas produces minimal, heavy oil produces more. It's not a reliable measurement unless you have a precise breakdown at your fingertips.You're generally talking about specific actions in response to weather. I'm talking about general reations in response to long-term climate trends in a historical sense.

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-63305355544743961892008-05-05T18:29:00.000-07:002008-05-05T18:29:00.000-07:002008-05-05T18:29:00.000-07:00

No Keith,You are mixing up Invention with Observation.Lets back up, and take your theory:warming treads cause an increase in GHG-producing human activityMy Observation (and what I can deduce from my own logic, combined with what I observe) I am refuting your statement and offering my own observations.1) I observe that people use more heat when it is colder, and less heat when it is warmer.2)

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-720232644908637002008-05-05T14:48:00.000-07:002008-05-05T14:48:00.000-07:002008-05-05T14:48:00.000-07:00

The theory that cold weather caused people to drive more? No, that was YOUR invention. My theory is that warming treads cause an increase in GHG-producting human activity. You seemingly haven't felt the need to refute what I'm actually arguing.I'll present the data you want when you address the theory I'm presenting. Tis simple enough.And yes, I did present that data David asked for. You

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-40038165010933082042008-05-05T12:54:00.000-07:002008-05-05T12:54:00.000-07:002008-05-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

Keith, You brought the theory up, you presented it, not me.You claim that data backs up your argument, I only claim that my observations don't seem to coincide with your argument (that you supposedly have data to back up, but fail to present).Just as much as people are less willing to go out and about when the weather is very cold,They are likely to drive instead of walk, give the kids a ride to

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-32405391646545143652008-05-05T00:47:00.000-07:002008-05-05T00:47:00.000-07:002008-05-05T00:47:00.000-07:00

Lew, are you at all familiar with how science is done?Of course I am, David. But somehow, you seem to neglect that even popular media accepts articles written by scientists and authors write based upon scientists reports.Regardless, I gave you links to scientific articles in scientific publications which you deny or ignore.Doesn't it make you wonder why many scientists are withdrawing from the

Lew Watershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06422249750094117697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-81779971931754657562008-05-05T00:25:00.000-07:002008-05-05T00:25:00.000-07:002008-05-05T00:25:00.000-07:00

I gather that you're not really getting my point. The point isn't that people drive more or less depending upon the temperature... the point is that people are less likely to actually go out and about in colder weather unless it's neccessary. Think about it... when's the last time you've heard someone describe a hot day as being "miserable weather"? Innately, humans (like most animals) are fond

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-25968492890269996542008-05-05T00:03:00.000-07:002008-05-05T00:03:00.000-07:002008-05-05T00:03:00.000-07:00

ok Keith Give me some data, that indicates people are more likely to drive in warmer temperatures.And do NOT give me data that shows they drive more in the summer (that is when we take vacations).Give me data that shows if a given month, say January, is warmer, people will drive more during that same month, than if it were colder.And then the same for August, showing that an August which is

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-74509044599835572342008-05-04T21:41:00.000-07:002008-05-04T21:41:00.000-07:002008-05-04T21:41:00.000-07:00

No, people wouldn't drive more when it's colder. I know this because they presently DON'T drive more when it's colder. You've got a strange view of what people generally do. And the powerplants comment is nonsense because it has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions. As to the forest fires, those are a result of greater human activity because of increasing human forest "management." The actual

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-11416397388672535142008-05-04T21:16:00.000-07:002008-05-04T21:16:00.000-07:002008-05-04T21:16:00.000-07:00

Keith,Your argument makes no sense to me.YES, people would drive more if it were colder (and walk outside less) depending on HOW MUCH colder.But in the colder climates, yes.We use more power when it is colder. So yes, building more power plants makes sense.More people have heat than air conditioning.In fact, of all the things you mentioned, only forest fires made any sense.But those are not

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-53720827006524115782008-05-04T19:27:00.000-07:002008-05-04T19:27:00.000-07:002008-05-04T19:27:00.000-07:00

So it is your belief that if it was colder, we'd be driving more, building more factories and power plants, being generally more active, starting controlled burns, experiencing major forest fires, etc. I'm not sure where in the country you live, Eileen, but most people aren't frantically active in the cold. Your argument simply makes no sense at all.Isn't it the northern Nordic countries that are

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-23720685491800035762008-05-04T18:23:00.000-07:002008-05-04T18:23:00.000-07:002008-05-04T18:23:00.000-07:00

KeithI am inclined to believe David, in this argument.I think if it were colder, our behavior (the type that would increase global warming and/or carbon quantities) would be even greater. We would be burning even more fossil fuels;especially the places you mention, like Greenland.Trust me, the colder it is there, the more fuel they burn.Longer growing seasons do not increase carbon, they decrease

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-1481380017333649042008-05-04T17:22:00.000-07:002008-05-04T17:22:00.000-07:002008-05-04T17:22:00.000-07:00

Well, quite simply Eileen, humans basically act like most animals adapted to a temperate environment: as the environment gets warmer and lengthens growing seasons and makes it easier to work longer hours and mitigates the greater hazard of cold (cold causes substantially more hazards for humans than heat), human activity increases because the warming makes it possible. Human activity in Iceland

Keith Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02424025513314938150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16945570.post-632298521079244192008-05-04T13:11:00.000-07:002008-05-04T13:11:00.000-07:002008-05-04T13:11:00.000-07:00

Keith,Let me take ONE point of yours, that you insist on bringing up again.Correlation versus Causation.Sometimes this argument is legit and other times it borders ridiculous.If you are going to claim that the causation needs to be reversed (in that A is causing B, instead of B causing A) you should give some example of how A would cause B; especially when there are so many examples of how B can

Eileenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090970905053451038noreply@blogger.com