Text 7467, 100 rader
Skriven 2005-10-04 23:50:04 av Mark (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 7457 av John Cuccia (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Dial down the Sun?
==============================
From: "Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com>


"John Cuccia" <jcuccia@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:tlk5k1tsg8bbjlnfvg06tacv1t17rbhc4v@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:51:15 -0400, "Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Not at all, both charts show global warming,
>
> I'm sorry, but you can't model the atmosphere using two charts.  You
> can only find evidence to support your predispositions (whatever they
> may be).

Well both charts show global warming, one truncates the data so as to amplify
the apparent effect; the other uses the same data, but adds more data points
beyond the arbitrary cut-off in the first so as to show that the amplification
is misleading.

So I'm puzzled at your reply John, I don't argue that there is no global
warming, as is proven by the charts, I just question the unsubstantiated
position that it's "human caused."

I don't rely simply on those charts, they were simply an abbreviated example of
the debate that you lost when we had it last year or the year before. You want
5 dozen or so examples of doubt of the "human caused" canard spanning the last
couple of years? Here are a few, let me know if you want more:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_12-2005_06_18.shtml
Asking the Wrong Question on Global Climate Change: Ellen Goodman writes today:
From what I can tell from reading the literature by Rob Mendelsohn and others,
it is quite possible that based on the best predictions of global climate
change over the next century at least, the net benefits of global warming may
very well turn out to exceed the costs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSh
eet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from
researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom
over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists
really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says
his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of
grounds.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050214&s=easterbrook021405
Here's something you probably won't hear about: the multilateral greenhouse-gas
reduction agreement George W. Bush approved a year ago. The world's first
international anti-global-warming agreement to take force is not the Kyoto
treaty. It is a Bush Administration initiative, and you have not heard a peep
regarding the initiative because the American press corps is pretending it does
not exist.

http://www.reason.com/hod/pm010705.shtml
The global warming crowd argues that it is future changes in sea level that we
should be concerned about. But the best estimate for the future rate of global
warming is that it will be very close to the rate already established. That
translates to an increment of about four inches in the next 50 years.

After then, who knows? Our technologies are likely to be very different 100
years from now-much more efficient-and there's no guarantee that they will even
burn fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/120704G.html
The arguments for anthropogenic climate change often take the form of "we know
it is happening, therefore we need to do something about it now". While
appealing to the uncritical thinker, it implies two important but unstated
assumptions: 1) human induced climate change of any amount is very bad, and 2)
public policy should be changed to fix it, regardless of the cost.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community,
turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is
going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this
incredible error took place.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/10/global-warming-quiz_02.html
Global Warming Quiz
During what time period did the annual mean temperature increase from about 7
degrees C to over 10 degrees C?

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3064
The global warming theory says that an increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere will trap more of the sun's heat and "overcook" the planet. The
global climate computer models are programmed to assess how much overcooking
we'll suffer.

But, in the past, have changes in CO2 levels raised-or lowered-real-world
temperatures? Recently, both the earth's temperatures and the CO2 levels in the
atmosphere have been rising. But the temperature increase could be just the
earth's recovery from the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1850. (Most
of the recent warming occurred between 1880 and 1940)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49558-2003Sep22.html
Trenberth and others cautioned that the current rise probably has more to do
with long-term world climate patterns than with the release of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases because of modern-day human activities.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)