Comments below: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Giles Honeycutt" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiary material? > Totally off topic: > Jim, > Wow, now I know we are doing good. We stopped global warming before > it even got started!! You're assuming an unproven condition. It's a little silly to even debate this I think. (A 'media' and "pop-creation" by those who want to 'feel-good'. A veritable movement instigated by the very same save-the-whale groups that sees some need to assuage their guilt because they don't have something to center their lives/give their existance meaning ... I'll quit now!) > Now I wonder, we have some glaciers that are melting, and I > understand we now have a stream of cold water that is hitting > the gulf stream. Some of ^^^^ A key-word was used here: 'some'. It means not all and I even doubt it is a majority of those in actual possession of the facts. Taking this line also allows you to *only* site those sources that support your position. A LOT of factual material and evidence is ignored this way. > the "credible" experts are predicting some strange and cold winters > ahead. We *just* had a mild winter (this last winter) and one of the **mildest** (coolest) summers that I recall in twenty-five years! > About the only thing interesting that I can see, why are the glaciers > melting? Why did a huge ice shelf brake off of Antarctica? and this will You don't take into consideration *other* factors which you cannot see, for instance, inside-the-earth's-surface lava flow ... (You *do* know the earth possesses a warm, nay, hot core - don't you?) > cause colder weather. > I think the little ants on this planet that call them selves humans > have not even started to move a rubber tree plant. Even if we were > going to prevent something, we would need to know if that something Cap a volcano. Assure me that no more forests will burn. Write me a warranty on the sun's energy output. Give me confidence that we can stop *all* under-sea oil from seeping into the oceans (thereby ALSO contribiting to greenhouse gases in our ecosystem and eventually in our atmosphere). Look- man's actions are indeed SMALL compared to the scale NATURE moves in. We *are* ants ... > was coming, and if what we were doing was going to help or > hurt. Possibly making a change one direction would cause a backlash Like imposing arbitrary and punishing economic sanctions against the producers in this world via something as resticting as "Carbon Credit Trading"? No thanks. RF Jim > from mother nature in the opposite direction. > > Totally off topic, > Giles > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:08 PM > Subject: Re: [OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiary material? > > > > "every single credible atmospheric scientist and > > publication" > > > > Sorry, but, " *every* single credible atmospheric > > scientist and publication" does NOT agree that > > global warming is occuring. > > > > I can show you data going back 100 years from a > > temp/environment measuring station near here > > that shows an actual DECLINE in average > > temperature. > > > > Do you recall when this 'calamity' was first predicted? > > It's been nearly 12 years now - and 'models' are still > > being pointed to as 'proof' while Greenpeace fudges > > evidence ... > > > > A little more credible source on this subject and a > > site that also provides access to actual temp *data* > > going back hundreds of years can be found here: > > > > http://www.co2science.org/ > > > > Access to temp records in the US can be accessed by > > clicking on "US cliamte" on the side bar. Pick a > > station like "Weatherford" from the list then > > click "calculate trend" and the average temp from > > 1846 to 200 shows a steady DECLINE. > > > > While we're on this subject of supposed "Global > > Warming" due to increased levels of CO_sub2 owing > > to the combustion of recovered hydrocarbon deposits > > (NOTE the deference to the term "recovered hydrocarbon > > deposits" as opposed to the media-darling term "fossil > > fuels") any contributory effect due to Sun and changes > > in it's output are excluded - > > > > - why is it that we don't have a corresponding DECREASE > > in O_sub2 levels? (Only increased levels of CO_sub2 are > > decried ... while I would think the *real* worry should > > be concerned with O_sub2 levels.) > > > > > > RF Jim > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark Perri" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:33 PM > > Subject: Re: [OT]: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiary material? > > > > > > > Dear Jim, > > > > > > I wouldn't exactly refer to Greenpeace and the New York > > > Times as scientific publications, and therefore you shouldn't > > > be convinced to believe in or not believe in global warming > > > based on their stories. I'm not surprised that they either > > > exaggerate to sell publications or to win over those who > > > aren't convinced yet. > > > > > > But what you should listen to is every single credible > > > atmospheric scientist and publication that states that > > > global warming is definitely true and producing significant > > > climate change. The problem with getting people > > > to believe in global climate change is that it is an extremely > > > difficult and complex problem and therefore involves a good > > > deal of uncertainty. > > > > > > I don't have the latest recommendation in front of me, > > > but it's in the neighborhood of 3 +/- 1 degree C, or > > > a more conservative number like 2 +/- 2 depending on which > > > model is run. Now, here's where the problem lies. The > > > scientists who determine these numbers publish them and of > > > course publish their uncertainties, or else they would be very > > > dishonest. To any other scientist, you look at the numbers > > > and know that about 2-3 degrees of global warming will occur > > > with a fair amount of certainty. > > > > > > But if you're someone like President Bush with ulterior motives, > > > you say, "Wow look at these uncertainties. Why can't the > > > scientists have zero error and be 100% correct. Plus my > > > science advisors and the general public have no idea about > > > climate change. I'll 'Do Little and Delay'" Which is what ends > > > up happening here in the US because we'd rather do what's > > > good for the economy rather than the Earth. It's too bad > > > the US administration seems to actually need someone > > > to exaggerate before they will listen. > > > > > > > > > At 08:19 PM 8/20/02, you wrote: > > > >Title: SLIPPERY SLOPE [written by Andrew Stuttaford] > > > > > > > >Greenpeace has been showing [these] pictures on its website: > > > > > > > >http://www.greenpeace.org/features/details?features%5fid=21871 > > > > > > > >comparing the current state of some glaciers in > > > >Svalbard (an island some five hundred miles to > > > >the north of Norway) with how they used to be > > > >some eighty years ago. > > > > > > > >The picture (ice then, rocks now) seems to give > > > >further weight to the global warming hypothesis. > > > > > > > >A dramatic story? Well, no. It turns out that the > > > >Greens didn't bother to check the facts. > > > > > > > >The London Daily Telegraph, however, did. > > > > > > > > > > > > F > > > > > > >FOAVCBQYIV0xml=/news/2002/08/17/wglac17.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/08/17/ixworld > > . > > > >html&_requestid=74431&_requestid=415539> > > > > > > > >One of its correspondents took the trouble to consult > > > >with the marvelously named Professor Ole Humlun, a > > > >leading glaciologist in that part of the world. The > > > >result? It turns out that the glacier melted back in > > > >the 1920s. > > > > > > > >As yet, there has been no change to the Greenpeace > > > >website. > > > > > > > >This embarrassment comes a few weeks after the New > > > >York Times was shown to have misstated the degree > > > >of warming in Alaska. > > > > > > > >If the case for man-made global warming is so clear-cut > > > >as we are always told, why the need for all the exaggeration? > > > > > > > >+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - > > > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics