Are you following this climatologist email scandal?

[mauve66]

Ok, so let me attempt to recap this whole argument:

side a - Haha!  This single group of scientists screwed up their data!  this proves GW is a lie!

side b - well, not really. They did screw up, but there's lots of other work that supports GW too.  Still, this does weaken the case a bit, and We agree it isn't proven, so lets do some more research now.

side a - Haha!  GW is a lie and you're just mad that your side lost!

side b - No, We're just pointing out that GW is still a very well supported theory even if you completely exclude this work. (cites examples of undisputed facts that support the plausibility of GW in an effort to justify continuing research)

Side a - No way, man, that info is all wrong cuz volcanoes!  And it's just a theory anyway!  Plus al gore said it was the same as gravity, that proves your side is wrong.

side b - Whether it is a theory doesn't relate to its validity; explains how theory works in relation to the scientific method; uses gravity as an example; agrees that Al gore is an idiot.

side a - See, now you're changing the subject!  You just tried to make us look stupid.  Besides, you haven't provided any proof of GW!

so which part of the arguement clarifies this part??  and this part isn't a theory it is PROVEN

i still want to know how the climate history that was known in the 70-80's changed so much by the 90's that the whole concept changed from "the next ice age" to "global warming" to "climate change"


USING ALL THE SAME DATA

[mauve66]

oh yeah, 11 pages and no lock, this has got to be the best DISCUSSION ever

[bull]

No, that's not true.  The costs are tremendous if you're wrong EITHER WAY.  

Funny thing here, I hear so many complaining about people supporting GW without enough evidence, while they continue to rant in support of the opposing position, which has absolutely no evidence.  So, where's YOUR neutrality?

Yes, I know there are a few here that believe it's false, but would be open to proof - but there are quite a number utterly convinced beyond reason, and in spite of evidence against their position. (for example, "the idea that man can impact the climate is arrogance")

I would think a lack of proof coupled with a little book-cooking in the GW camp would be ample proof that the status quo is pretty innocuous. It's kind of like innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution hasn't proved human guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, even though they've tried to use tainted evidence in their favor.

What's kind of idiotic about the GW Nazis at the Climatic Research Unit is that if they had any PR brains among them they would have taken credit for the recent good news regarding average temperatures and used it as proof that their methods were working. They could have said it was a victory for the changes we've made thus far and congratulated those who've sacrificed so much (celebrity waste notwithstanding). Instead they chose to continue down the doom and gloom road and use "creative" numbers-crunching to obscure the good news.

Also, it's nice how not only do these guys seem upset about the lack of bad news they enjoy bashing on the competition. The arrogance displayed here is amazing and I find it interesting how they apparently feel they are above reproach and beyond accountability. So much for the idea of respect, civility and nutrality:

Nov. 16, 1999. From Phil Jones to colleagues.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Oct. 12, 2009. From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and colleagues.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,"

Aug 10, 2004. From Michael Mann to Phil Jones and colleague.

"I've attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future ..."

Jan. 10, 2006. From Tom Wigley to Keith Briffa.

"I really think you have to do (and can do) a better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature, you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can make MM look like ignorant idiots."

Jan 15, 2008. From Phil Jones to colleagues.

"We're saying much the same things about recent temps, and probably when it comes to those idiots saying global warming is stopping - in some recent RC and CA threads [internet forums]."

Yea, I know they've already put the spin doctors to work on the above quotes so please spare us more backpeddling.

[RD]

i think this whole argument is just a microcosm of the idiocy that happens at greater levels.  We have, to reference defiance, a side A and B. 

Side A states there is not man-made GW / CC, side B says there is, but this is where it differs:

Side A does not have to prove if man-made GW / CC exists because they do not believe in it.  If you do not believe in something, why should you have to prove in its existence?  If you dont think it exists, isnt that just stupid to try and prove it does?

Side B believes in man-made GW / CC, but takes a minute amount of data, in relation to the entire existence of this planet, to prove their point and expects everyone else to believe it just because they do.  Some of the leaders in their field manipulate data to produce false-positives.  The temperatures of the earth no longer coincide with the theory of GW AND so it is then changed to climate change with man-made influence.

Sorry, but I believe, because I am just wired this way I guess, that me having to try and prove something I dont believe to exist is about the most ridiculous request anyone can ask of me.  There are so many variables on this planet that man has no idea of, how to explain it, how to gauge it, or even how to understand it.

GW is just another attempt by those to try and control my life and how I choose to live it.  Sorry, but mind your effin business and quit trying to tell me wtf to do.  Live your own life, leave mine alone.  I dont go jumping into your charger and tell you are a GW proponent and you have to change your car to electric do I?  I dont go into your house and tell you to change out your incandescent bulbs to flourescent ones because your global footprint is to large do I?  I dont tell you that your opinion is crap and you must stop your research because you believe in something I dont do I?  INSTEAD I TELL YOU TO QUIT PROVIDING ME WITH HALF-ASSED ANSWERS AND PROVIDE ME WITH IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, OF WHICH NO ONE HAS DONE SO FAR TO THIS POINT.

If you think GW exists, get rid of your gas guzzling, polluting charger.  If you really believe there needs to be change, then start the change by giving up your mopar.  If you all believe in GW / CC by manmade hands so much, then BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD.  (Ghandi)  Don't pull the do as I say, not as I do BS.  Because your words will fall upon deaf ears, especially to me.

[Ghoste]

Right on RD.  Having to prove the theory doesn't exist is like putting an artist rendering of the Loch Ness monster in a biology textbook and instructing students that until someone can prove Nessie doesn't exist they are required to treat it as if it does.

[Daytona R/T SE]

i think this whole argument is just a microcosm of the idiocy that happens at greater levels.  We have, to reference defiance, a side A and B. 

Side A states there is not man-made GW / CC, side B says there is, but this is where it differs:

Side A does not have to prove if man-made GW / CC exists because they do not believe in it.  If you do not believe in something, why should you have to prove in its existence?  If you dont think it exists, isnt that just stupid to try and prove it does?

Side B believes in man-made GW / CC, but takes a minute amount of data, in relation to the entire existence of this planet, to prove their point and expects everyone else to believe it just because they do.  Some of the leaders in their field manipulate data to produce false-positives.  The temperatures of the earth no longer coincide with the theory of GW AND so it is then changed to climate change with man-made influence.

Sorry, but I believe, because I am just wired this way I guess, that me having to try and prove something I dont believe to exist is about the most ridiculous request anyone can ask of me.  There are so many variables on this planet that man has no idea of, how to explain it, how to gauge it, or even how to understand it.

GW is just another attempt by those to try and control my life and how I choose to live it.  Sorry, but mind your effin business and quit trying to tell me wtf to do.  Live your own life, leave mine alone.  I dont go jumping into your charger and tell you are a GW proponent and you have to change your car to electric do I?  I dont go into your house and tell you to change out your incandescent bulbs to flourescent ones because your global footprint is to large do I?  I dont tell you that your opinion is crap and you must stop your research because you believe in something I dont do I?  INSTEAD I TELL YOU TO QUIT PROVIDING ME WITH HALF-ASSED ANSWERS AND PROVIDE ME WITH IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, OF WHICH NO ONE HAS DONE SO FAR TO THIS POINT.

If you think GW exists, get rid of your gas guzzling, polluting charger.  If you really believe there needs to be change, then start the change by giving up your mopar.  If you all believe in GW / CC by manmade hands so much, then BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD.  (Ghandi)  Don't pull the do as I say, not as I do BS.  Because your words will fall upon deaf ears, especially to me.

[John_Kunkel]

Right on RD.  Having to prove the theory doesn't exist is like putting an artist rendering of the Loch Ness monster in a biology textbook and instructing students that until someone can prove Nessie doesn't exist they are required to treat it as if it does.

It's not exactly the same, the naysayers are providing their own data to DISPROVE climate change; by publishing data to contradict anybody else's data they are under the same burden of proof that their opposition is.

[Ghoste]

They're providing there own data because they are being forced to disprove it in this case.  If you were to provide spotty evidence that Nessie exists and is in great peril due to some man made catasrophe and told the people of Scotland that they all had begin paying a "Save Nessie" tax to ensure it's survival, you can damned sure bet that people would provide data to disprove that example so I will submit that it is very close to being exactly the same.

[mauve66]

still waiting..................................

Ok, so let me attempt to recap this whole argument:

side a - Haha!  This single group of scientists screwed up their data!  this proves GW is a lie!

side b - well, not really. They did screw up, but there's lots of other work that supports GW too.  Still, this does weaken the case a bit, and We agree it isn't proven, so lets do some more research now.

side a - Haha!  GW is a lie and you're just mad that your side lost!

side b - No, We're just pointing out that GW is still a very well supported theory even if you completely exclude this work. (cites examples of undisputed facts that support the plausibility of GW in an effort to justify continuing research)

Side a - No way, man, that info is all wrong cuz volcanoes!  And it's just a theory anyway!  Plus al gore said it was the same as gravity, that proves your side is wrong.

side b - Whether it is a theory doesn't relate to its validity; explains how theory works in relation to the scientific method; uses gravity as an example; agrees that Al gore is an idiot.

side a - See, now you're changing the subject!  You just tried to make us look stupid.  Besides, you haven't provided any proof of GW!

so which part of the arguement clarifies this part??  and this part isn't a theory it is PROVEN

i still want to know how the climate history that was known in the 70-80's changed so much by the 90's that the whole concept changed from "the next ice age" to "global warming" to "climate change"


USING ALL THE SAME DATA

[my73charger]

i think this whole argument is just a microcosm of the idiocy that happens at greater levels.  We have, to reference defiance, a side A and B. 

Side A states there is not man-made GW / CC, side B says there is, but this is where it differs:

Side A does not have to prove if man-made GW / CC exists because they do not believe in it.  If you do not believe in something, why should you have to prove in its existence?  If you dont think it exists, isnt that just stupid to try and prove it does?

Side B believes in man-made GW / CC, but takes a minute amount of data, in relation to the entire existence of this planet, to prove their point and expects everyone else to believe it just because they do.  Some of the leaders in their field manipulate data to produce false-positives.  The temperatures of the earth no longer coincide with the theory of GW AND so it is then changed to climate change with man-made influence.

Sorry, but I believe, because I am just wired this way I guess, that me having to try and prove something I dont believe to exist is about the most ridiculous request anyone can ask of me.  There are so many variables on this planet that man has no idea of, how to explain it, how to gauge it, or even how to understand it.

GW is just another attempt by those to try and control my life and how I choose to live it.  Sorry, but mind your effin business and quit trying to tell me wtf to do.  Live your own life, leave mine alone.  I dont go jumping into your charger and tell you are a GW proponent and you have to change your car to electric do I?  I dont go into your house and tell you to change out your incandescent bulbs to flourescent ones because your global footprint is to large do I?  I dont tell you that your opinion is crap and you must stop your research because you believe in something I dont do I?  INSTEAD I TELL YOU TO QUIT PROVIDING ME WITH HALF-ASSED ANSWERS AND PROVIDE ME WITH IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, OF WHICH NO ONE HAS DONE SO FAR TO THIS POINT.

If you think GW exists, get rid of your gas guzzling, polluting charger.  If you really believe there needs to be change, then start the change by giving up your mopar.  If you all believe in GW / CC by manmade hands so much, then BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD.  (Ghandi)  Don't pull the do as I say, not as I do BS.  Because your words will fall upon deaf ears, especially to me.

I agree with RD on this.  To be honest I am beginning to believe there is a conspiracy afoot in the GW community of believers to gain wealth and control.  RD's point about getting rid of your polluting charger is right on as well.  It seems that if you believe in something you would stand behind it and for example, the copenhagen vacationers are putting up plenty of CO2 with all those private jets and limos.  I heard that there were well over 1200 limos there and they were driving them in from other countries for these people.  The phrase put your money where your mouth is comes to mind. People like Al Gore are two faced and I am sick of hearing from them.

[squeakfinder]

The climate change summit has about as much to do with the environment as the health care bill in the US senate has to do with health care. Let's create a crisis, pass some laws, and control people. It's all about power. Socialism and Communism won't succeed if the proponent's of it would be honest and tell us what there selling. So they try to disguise it.

[1969chargerrtse]

LONDON - E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.






http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001

[bull]

  "according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press." Funny, they're now researching and creating their own news stories and quoting themselves as the main source. By the Associated Press, for the Associated Press. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Tilar]

The climate change summit has about as much to do with the environment as the health care bill in the US senate has to do with health care. Let's create a crisis, pass some laws, and control people. It's all about power. Socialism and Communism won't succeed if the proponent's of it would be honest and tell us what there selling. So they try to disguise it.

That is exactly what it's all about. Controlling power and money. Nothing more.

[defiance]

Right, if your argument is failing attack the opposition.  My charger has added less co2 to the atmosphere in the time I've owned it than the average electric car.  Nevermind, this is pointless.  This talk of conspiracy and rejection of reason is too much for me.

[RD]

*MATH FIXED*

2009 POPULATION:  6,707,000,000

1900 POPULATION:  1,650,000,000

DIFFERENCE: 5,057,000,000 MORE PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH IN 109 YEARS

We all exhale carbon dioxide.  We all breathe in between 18,000-30,000 times per day.  Each breathe contains 4% carbon dioxide.  Total volume of exhaled gases is based upon each individual volume of lung capacity and activity done.  The average human lung contains 6 liters of air.  Only a small amount is actually used during normal inspiration and expiration.  Let's say 10% = .6 liters of air for each lung = 1.2 L of air.  4% of that amount is .048 L.  So, each expiration a human being does is .048 L of carbon dioxide.  Take that times the MINIMUM (18,000) number of breaths in a day and you have 864 L of Carbon Dioxide a human being produces in one day.

For all you math guys out there, take 864 L times the current population of the earth: 6,707,000,000.

ANSWER: 5,794,848,000,000 Liters of CO2 everyday.  that is 5 Trillion 794 Billion 848 Million liters of CO2 each day from human breathing.

Now, the weight of CO2 per liter (At 76 degrees [24.85 C or 298K]) weighs: 0.001977 KG/L.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So... 11,456,414,496 kilograms or 11.45 billion kilograms of CO2 are put in the air each day by humans as of the present day.

in 1900 they only put 2,818,411,200 OR 2.82 billion kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere.

In 2009, humans have contributed 4 times more CO2 production into the atmosphere by breathing (alone) than we did 109 years ago.

MY POINT?

Maybe we should outlaw breathing as a integral component to man-made global warming and climate change, because honestly, this is truly man-made.  Remember, CO2 is a harmful gas now according to the EPA

[RD]

Right, if your argument is failing attack the opposition.  My charger has added less co2 to the atmosphere in the time I've owned it than the average electric car.  Nevermind, this is pointless.  This talk of conspiracy and rejection of reason is too much for me.

dude, that is what you have been doing. for the record, i am not attacking you, i am asking you to put your actions before your words.

[Brock Samson]

2009 POPULATION:  6,707,000,000

1900 POPULATION:  1,650,000,000

DIFFERENCE: 5,057,000,000 MORE PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH IN 109 YEARS

We all exhale carbon dioxide.  We all breathe in between 18,000-30,000 times per day.  Each breathe contains 4% carbon dioxide.  Total volume of exhaled gases is based upon each individual volume of lung capacity and activity done.  The average human lung contains 6 liters of air.  Only a small amount is actually used during normal inspiration and expiration.  Let's say 10% = .6 liters of air for each lung = 1.2 L of air.  4% of that amount is .48 L.  So, each expiration a human being does is .48 L of carbon dioxide.  Take that times the MINIMUM (18,000) number of breaths in a day and you have 8640 L of Carbon Dioxide a human being produces in one day.

For all you math guys out there, take 8640 L times the current population of the earth: 6,707,000,000.

ANSWER: 57,948,480,000,000 Liters of CO2 everyday.  that is 57 Trillion 948 Billion 480 Million liters of CO2 each day from human breathing.

Now, the weight of CO2 per liter (At 76 degrees [24.85 C or 298K]) weighs: 0.001977 KG/L.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So... 114,564,144,960 kilograms or 114.5 billion kilograms of CO2 are put in the air each day by humans as of the present day.

in 1900 they only put 28,184,112,000 OR 28.2 billion kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere.

In 2009, humans have contributed 4 times more CO2 production into the atmosphere by breathing (alone) than we did 109 years ago.

MY POINT?

Maybe we should outlaw breathing as a integral component to man-made global warming and climate change, because honestly, this is truly man-made.  Remember, CO2 is a harmful gas now according to the EPA

   ok, you first. 

[RD]

  ok, you first.  

well.. since you mentioned something.. your state would probably want to lead the way dont you think?  I, for one, plan on breathing for a long time.

funny though had me laughing, thanks.

[bull]

Right, if your argument is failing attack the opposition.  My charger has added less co2 to the atmosphere in the time I've owned it than the average electric car. 

I agree with that statement. Ain't it funny how the greenies have such a love affair with electric cars and hybrids and yet production-/maintenance-wise they are the biggest polluters? 

[dodgecharger-fan]

2009 POPULATION:  6,707,000,000

1900 POPULATION:  1,650,000,000

DIFFERENCE: 5,057,000,000 MORE PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH IN 109 YEARS

We all exhale carbon dioxide.  We all breathe in between 18,000-30,000 times per day.  Each breathe contains 4% carbon dioxide.  Total volume of exhaled gases is based upon each individual volume of lung capacity and activity done.  The average human lung contains 6 liters of air.  Only a small amount is actually used during normal inspiration and expiration.  Let's say 10% = .6 liters of air for each lung = 1.2 L of air.  4% of that amount is .48 L.  So, each expiration a human being does is .48 L of carbon dioxide.  Take that times the MINIMUM (18,000) number of breaths in a day and you have 8640 L of Carbon Dioxide a human being produces in one day.

For all you math guys out there, take 8640 L times the current population of the earth: 6,707,000,000.

ANSWER: 57,948,480,000,000 Liters of CO2 everyday.  that is 57 Trillion 948 Billion 480 Million liters of CO2 each day from human breathing.

Now, the weight of CO2 per liter (At 76 degrees [24.85 C or 298K]) weighs: 0.001977 KG/L.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So... 114,564,144,960 kilograms or 114.5 billion kilograms of CO2 are put in the air each day by humans as of the present day.

in 1900 they only put 28,184,112,000 OR 28.2 billion kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere.

In 2009, humans have contributed 4 times more CO2 production into the atmosphere by breathing (alone) than we did 109 years ago.

MY POINT?

Maybe we should outlaw breathing as a integral component to man-made global warming and climate change, because honestly, this is truly man-made.  Remember, CO2 is a harmful gas now according to the EPA

MATH POLICE! You have made an error! Correct it or be taken into Internet custody....


4% of 1.2L is 0.048L, not 0.48L, so the rest of the math is off by a factor of 10... So, we can let more people keep on breathing - man isn't that bad.

[defiance]

Right, if your argument is failing attack the opposition.  My charger has added less co2 to the atmosphere in the time I've owned it than the average electric car.  Nevermind, this is pointless.  This talk of conspiracy and rejection of reason is too much for me.

dude, that is what you have been doing. for the record, i am not attacking you, i am asking you to put your actions before your words.

My actions support EXACTLY what my words say: MORE RESEARCH.  How, exactly, would "getting rid of my charger" support that?  No, you're arguing with the made-up version of me that is somehow gung-ho about carbon credits or something.  And as far as attacking people, the only people I've attacked are those talking about the government conspiracies to seize control through global warming or other such idiocy.  To the more reasonable doubters, I'm just trying to convince people that the situation really does justify a more moderate stance rather than the false dichotomy BS everyone's stuck in right now.  Applying reason to the information available would not lead anyone to believe that GW is an outright lie, nor would it lead them to believe it was absolutely unassailably true - and yet those are the viewpoints being argued.  I keep coming back to this thread.  It's like an abusive ex-boyfriend or something.  I wish I could quit you!

[Silver R/T]

Sad part is that they make more money than most of us do or any other hard worker who works in factory somewhere across America.

[RD]

My actions support EXACTLY what my words say: MORE RESEARCH.  How, exactly, would "getting rid of my charger" support that?  No, you're arguing with the made-up version of me that is somehow gung-ho about carbon credits or something.  And as far as attacking people, the only people I've attacked are those talking about the government conspiracies to seize control through global warming or other such idiocy.  To the more reasonable doubters, I'm just trying to convince people that the situation really does justify a more moderate stance rather than the false dichotomy BS everyone's stuck in right now.  Applying reason to the information available would not lead anyone to believe that GW is an outright lie, nor would it lead them to believe it was absolutely unassailably true - and yet those are the viewpoints being argued.  I keep coming back to this thread.  It's like an abusive ex-boyfriend or something.  I wish I could quit you!

welp... git er done then.  personally, i believe all the humans could do as much research as they wanted, i will be dead before they figure something out in regards to this.

alas, none of our petty bickering on this site will amount to crud because we waste too much time here instead of typing to our representatives (who dont give two hoots about us anyway).  I guess its time to let this topic go too!  I should be out in the garage anyway.

No hard feelings defiance, you did a good job of justifying your beliefs, you and I just dont see eye to eye.

[RD]

2009 POPULATION:  6,707,000,000

1900 POPULATION:  1,650,000,000

DIFFERENCE: 5,057,000,000 MORE PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH IN 109 YEARS

We all exhale carbon dioxide.  We all breathe in between 18,000-30,000 times per day.  Each breathe contains 4% carbon dioxide.  Total volume of exhaled gases is based upon each individual volume of lung capacity and activity done.  The average human lung contains 6 liters of air.  Only a small amount is actually used during normal inspiration and expiration.  Let's say 10% = .6 liters of air for each lung = 1.2 L of air.  4% of that amount is .48 L.  So, each expiration a human being does is .48 L of carbon dioxide.  Take that times the MINIMUM (18,000) number of breaths in a day and you have 8640 L of Carbon Dioxide a human being produces in one day.

For all you math guys out there, take 8640 L times the current population of the earth: 6,707,000,000.

ANSWER: 57,948,480,000,000 Liters of CO2 everyday.  that is 57 Trillion 948 Billion 480 Million liters of CO2 each day from human breathing.

Now, the weight of CO2 per liter (At 76 degrees [24.85 C or 298K]) weighs: 0.001977 KG/L.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So... 114,564,144,960 kilograms or 114.5 billion kilograms of CO2 are put in the air each day by humans as of the present day.

in 1900 they only put 28,184,112,000 OR 28.2 billion kilograms of CO2 into the atmosphere.

In 2009, humans have contributed 4 times more CO2 production into the atmosphere by breathing (alone) than we did 109 years ago.

MY POINT?

Maybe we should outlaw breathing as a integral component to man-made global warming and climate change, because honestly, this is truly man-made.  Remember, CO2 is a harmful gas now according to the EPA

MATH POLICE! You have made an error! Correct it or be taken into Internet custody....


4% of 1.2L is 0.048L, not 0.48L, so the rest of the math is off by a factor of 10... So, we can let more people keep on breathing - man isn't that bad.

um.. oops, thats what i got you for!