Text 7470, 116 rader
Skriven 2005-10-05 08:52:14 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 7467 av Mark (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Dial down the Sun?
==============================
From: "Robert Comer" <bobcomer_removeme@mindspring.com>

> 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."

Whether it's human caused or not is irrelevant.

- Bob Comer


"Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43434d47@w3.nls.net...
>
> "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&s
Sheet=/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)