J
Joe Hey
Guest
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 21:40:41 +1100
Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Right, so apparently the gene, although defective, doesn't
necessarily directly 'cause' autism.
Then my next question would be: what made his sons get autism where he
didn't? Apparently some trigger, does time of onset of symptoms relative
to time of vaccination rule out the vaccine as a contributor?
joe
Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On 24/12/2015 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 24/12/2015 8:18 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:56:06 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 24/12/2015 12:08 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:18:44 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 23/12/2015 9:07 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:29:00 +1300
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Joe Hey wrote:
[snippped]
We know that the sun has periods of high and low activity
though, which
tend to cause variations in the global temperatures.
This is something which can be and is measured and has been
ruled out as being causational in regard to the current
extreme weather patterns. (Which are extreme in cold as well
as heat - hardly likely to be the sun as it's stable - at
least when talking decades or centuries.)
The same argument would also reject (the quite stable) AG CO2
as a cause for the extremes, so I suspect some fundamental
error in your reasoning.
**Wrong. In the past 150 years, we have seen CO2 levels
increase by almost 50%. This is the most rapid rise in CO2
levels noted in more than a million years. During this same
period, we have seen average temperatures rise higher and
faster than at any time in the past million years. Based on
proxy measurements from ice cores, we can see that temperatures
have tracked CO2 levels very closely over the past million
years or so. That said, you are correct in that Solar activity
is the lowest it has been for several hundred years. Despite
this low activity, the average temperature of this planet
continues to rise. When the Sun resumes it's normal output, we
can expect surface temperatures on this planet to rise faster
and higher.
Did you even try to read what this argument was about?
It wasn't about maxima, it was about extremes.
To both sides of the scale.
**Your claim was that would also reject "...(the quite stable) AG
CO2 as a cause for the extremes..."
This claim is in contradiction to what every climatologist on the
planet tells us.
Correction: not 'every'.
**Yes, EVERY climatologist.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume
that you are not a climatologist
correct
and, therefore, lack any credibility
to make such a claim. CO2 levels are NOT stable. They have
increased almost 50% in the past 150 years and are increasing
rapidly.
As I'm not the 'climatologist' here I can only _assume_ you are
right. But a steady increase is not the same as a lot of extremes,
i.e. both highs and lows.
**For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels hovered around 180
~ 300ppm. In the past 150 years, the figure has shot up to more than
400ppm. Not only is the absolute figure unheard of in human history
but, most critically, the RATE of rise of CO2 levels is more rapid
than at any time in at least the past million years. Probably much
longer. Coincident with that rapid increase, we have seen an
increase in temperatures as well.
So one can't claim a correlation between those two.
(_Steady_ increase of CO2 --> more variability in weather.)
It's speculative. It could be true or not, there is no proof.
**Correct. There is not yet absolute proof. However, this is what we
know, beyond any doubt:
* CO2 acts as a Solar forcing agent (aka: Greenhouse gas - GHG).
This has been determined experimentally thousands of times.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels than at any time in
the past million years.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in average temperatures than at
any time in the past million years.
* An examination of past climate conditions (through ice core
proxies) a very close correlation between rising CO2 levels and
rising temperatures are noted. Sometimes CO2 leads temperatures and
sometimes it lags. What is beyond doubt is that when one rises, the
other follows. Always.
From this information, ALL (yes ALL) the planet's climatologists
agree that excessive CO2 levels is causing the warming we are
experiencing.
The following is less certain:
* The vast majority of climatologists (roughly 98%) are of the
opinion that a 'tipping point' will be reached at approximately
500ppm, where runaway warming will occur and there will be nothing
humans can do to prevent utter catastrophe. At this point, most
researchers believe that permafrost areas will release huge amounts
of methane into the atmosphere (we're seeing this right now in
parts of Russia). Methane is roughly 20 times more potent than CO2
as a Solar forcing agent. Coincident with this, the oceans (which
contain around 36,000GT of CO2) will begin outgassing CO2, since
warmer water cannot hold dissolved gases as readily as colder
water. This will accelerate the warming, thus causing more release
of methane and more release of CO2 from the oceans. The entire
atmospheric system will suffer positive feedback of such magnitude
that we will have no hope of correcting it.
* Roughly 1% of climatologists feel that the 'tipping point' has
already been reached. The number of climatologists in this group is
increasing.
* Another 1% of climatologists (less, actually) believe that there
will be a mechanism which prevents thermal runaway from occurring.
No proof exists to validate this belief however. It is highly
speculative. Worse, the promoters of this hypothesis are employed
by Exxon.
By the way, if I were to take your argument seriously, I could
argue with the same force that vaccinations are responsible for
the incredible rise of autism on this planet.
And you wouldn't want me to do that, would you?
**Do what you like. Autism was not formally recognised until
1943. It was not until 1981 that the problem was accepted as a
separate diagnosis. The problem has likely afflicted humans
forever, but only recently has it been given it's status. Thus
there APPEARS to have been a dramatic increase in cases. The
truth is more prosaic.
The truth is that I don't know many parents of autistic children
being diagnosed with autism, which one would expect if the genetic
explanation were to be true.
Therefore I think it would be wrong _and_ cruel to blame the
parents for the autism of their children, the rate of which is
still rising.
**A genetic explanation does not throw "blame" on anyone.
A friend of mine has 2 sons with autism. Through genetic testing, it
was found that boys' father had the same defective gene(s) though he
didn't exhibit signs of the disorder himself.
Right, so apparently the gene, although defective, doesn't
necessarily directly 'cause' autism.
Then my next question would be: what made his sons get autism where he
didn't? Apparently some trigger, does time of onset of symptoms relative
to time of vaccination rule out the vaccine as a contributor?
joe