"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the
natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable.
Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as
what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea
temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global
warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did
contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are
now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later
the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE
SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a
Guzzi
Desmo model?

Another few holes in kevins 'proof'

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...b62Em4,00.html
By JAMES SCHLESINGER
August 8, 2005
"Almost unnoticed, the theology of global warming has in recent weeks
suffered a number of setbacks. In referring to the theology of global
warming, one is not focusing on evidence of the earth's warming in recent
decades, particularly in the Arctic, but rather on the widespread insistence
that such warming is primarily a consequence of man's activities -- and
that, if only we collectively had the will, we could alter our behavior and
stop the warming of the planet.

It was Michael Crichton who pointed out in his Commonwealth Club lecture
some years ago that environmentalism had become the religion of Western
elites. Indeed it has. Most notably, the burning of fossil fuels (a
concomitant of economic growth and rising living standards) is the secular
counterpart of man's Original Sin. If only we would repent and sin no more,
mankind's actions could end the threat of further global warming. By
implication, the cost, which is never fully examined, is bearable. So far
the evidence is not convincing. It is notable that 13 of the 15 older
members of the European Union have failed to achieve their quotas under the
Kyoto accord -- despite the relatively slow growth of the European
economies.

The drumbeat on global warming was intended to reach a crescendo during
the run-up to the summit at Gleneagles. Prime Minister Blair has been a
leader in the global warming crusade. (Whether his stance reflects simple
conviction or the need to propitiate his party's Left after Iraq is
unknown.) In the event, for believers, Gleneagles turned out to be a major
disappointment.

On the eve of the summit, the Economic Committee of the House of Lords
released a report sharply at variance with the prevailing European
orthodoxy. Some key points were reported in the Guardian, a London newspaper
not hostile to that orthodoxy:

. The science of climate change leaves "considerable uncertainty" about
the future.

. There are concerns about the objectivity of the international panel of
scientists that has led research into climate change.

. The Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions will make little
difference and is likely to fail.

. The U.K.'s energy and climate policy contains "dubious assumptions"
about renewable energy and energy efficiency.


Most notably, the Committee itself concluded that there are concerns about
the objectivity of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
process and about the IPCC's crucial emissions scenario
exercise"..........................



"Much has been made of the assertion, repeated regularly in the media,
that "the science is settled," based upon a supposed "scientific consensus."
Yet, some years ago in the "Oregon Petition" between 17,000 and 18,000
signatories, almost all scientists, made manifest that the science was not
settled, declaring:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate."

Several additional observations are in order. First, the "consensus" is
ostensibly based upon the several Assessment Reports of the IPCC. One must
bear in mind that the summary reports are political documents put together
by government policy makers, who, to put it mildly, treat rather cavalierly
the expressed uncertainties and caveats in the underlying scientific
reports. Moreover, the IPCC was created to support a specific political
goal. It is directed to support the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change. In turn, the Convention calls for an effective international
response to deal with "the common concern of all mankind" -- in short, to
reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Statements by the leaders of the
IPCC have been uninhibitedly political.

Second, science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo,
Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on
speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is
more than computer simulations -- whose conclusions mirror the assumptions
built in the model. Irrespective of the repeated assertions regarding a
"scientific consensus," there is neither a consensus nor is consensus
science."