[LINK] My personal Particle footprint - was - Weekend Magazine

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Richard Archer
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 11:39 AM
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Weekend Magazine - Remote Siberian Lake 
> Holds Clues to Arctic--and Antarctic--Climate Change
> 
> 
> On 26/06/12 11:25 AM, TKoltai wrote:
> > I understood what he was alluding too, however that conclusion then 
> > means that his 1988 paper is 250% wrong in it's predictions.
> 
> Tom,
> 
> If you wish to have a warm and fuzzy feeling inside while 
> you're sitting 
> in your fossil-fuel-heated/cooled house drinking beers made 
> with fossil 
> fuels and chilled with fossil fuels purchased with dollars generated 
> from burning fossil fuels and brought home in your fossil 
> fuel-powered car... 

Err, I don't drink beer, only organically grown red wine, fermented in
old casks and never ever chilled.

I'm pretty sure that my electricity comes mainly from the solar panels
on the roof, and I don't drive.

I catch public transport (err, mainly electric trains) or whizz around
on my bicycle.

(I could explain that we practice permaculture and grow a lot of our own
food, but I feel that I would be wasting my time...)

> well that's all fine and dandy. You just keep on 
> telling yourself 
> that releasing the CO2 from all those fossil fuels back into the 
> atmosphere isn't going to re-create the climate that existed 
> when they 
> were sequestered.
> 

No our climate is much more likely to be affected by the position of the
solar system as our precessional orbit takes us between hot and cold.
Or, 180 degrees of the ecliptic plane.

> Clearly nobody is going to be able to stop you from deluding yourself 
> (and why should they even try?), and likewise you're not going to 
> convince anyone otherwise with your bogus pseudoscience / 
> regurgitated propaganda.

And your opinion of AGW is obviously from your years of personal
research into the topic ?

Or is it just the regurgitated crowd sourced "sky is falling" meme ?

I do actually believe in the damaging nature of fossil fuels. Just not
the CO2 part.
For example, start talking about Methane and you might have a convert.

Only a few years ago I was an AGW proponent. 2005 business model that I
wrote (and researched refers) http://kovtr.com/data/Link/im0031.pdf

But an additional few years of casual research, additional astronomical
data and Temperature databases being fiddled with and personal
observation of cooling summers in Sydney have led me to the conclusion
that it is the particle emissions that are the greatest threat.
The CO2 and CH4 mostly escape the atmosphere as they are pushed up by
ground heat.
The ground heat that is caused principally by increases in solar
activity and H2O reflections from Clouds and the Gulf Stream.

But the particles from our coal plants, our motor vehicle emissions and
our cosy log fires are killing us.

TomK