So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:56:14 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news:OeydnZdp1v1tjPjUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@posted. bayareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less
than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political
will.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same
thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

That's one serious case of denial you've got there. You might want to look
for an ointment.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:16:10 -0500, hpeer wrote
this crap:

To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for
the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.


Gotta agree with you. In my town, the council is bitching because
they are paying too much for road salt. The last series of winters
have been so wicked, that all cities are buying lots of salt, and the
supplies are running slow, and the prices are going up.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:12:25 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote this crap:

I think we know a bit more than we did in the 70s...

I seriously doubt that you do.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

So much for global warming . . .
 

Bloody Horvath wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:16:10 -0500, hpeer wrote
this crap:

To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for
the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.


Gotta agree with you. In my town, the council is bitching because
they are paying too much for road salt. The last series of winters
have been so wicked, that all cities are buying lots of salt, and the
supplies are running slow, and the prices are going up.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

That may be. Local disturbances are all over the place. Statistical
data points can be all over the place, it is the long term trends that
are of significance. The usual attack on these types of reports is to
cite the difference between "weather" and "climate. My sister, living
in Newfoundland, has been griping that it is too damn warm up there.
And has been for most of the last few years.

If you were to look at the site of the researchers cited in Wilbur's
post you will find that they are concerned about the effects of GW.

As I said, my review has led to the conclusion that the arctic ice sheet
is BOTH losing surface area and thinning. The VAST majority of
information sources lead in one direction, Global Warming. Even
Wilbur's cited experts.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

I think we know a bit more than we did in the 70s...


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




Possibly. And thirty years from now, we'll know even more. Perhaps we'll
know that it was one big stupid idea to try to stop the temporary warming
trend. ;-)

"All trends are temporary." -- Inescapable truth #257
I am sure you are right
In the meantime however, governments are going to hit us all with huge taxes
to pay for 'green' projects and justifying themselves by telling us it is
all for our own, or the planets good

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite history.

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:02:18 -0500, hpeer wrote:

As I said, my review has led to the conclusion that the arctic ice sheet
is BOTH losing surface area and thinning. The VAST majority of
information sources lead in one direction, Global Warming.

Although still a bit of a skeptic I have to agree that the artic ice
evidence is fairly compelling. There have been lots of historic
variations in artic ice of course, none of which had anything to do
with human activity. That is the crux of the issue in my opinion:
Is the warming a result of some natural influence over which we have
no control, or is it indeed a result of fossil fuel combustion, or
some combination of both? I think the jury is still out and likely to
remain so for quite a while. The quest for alternate fuels is a good
thing however and should proceed full speed ahead regardless.

So much for global warming . . .
 

KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.

So much for global warming . . .
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:39:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is
ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite
history.

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.


Your memory is either faulty or selective.

The "Global Cooling" you remember was caused by an observable hole in
the ozone layer, created by the widespread indiscriminate use of
fluorocarbons. The ozone layer is needed because it is what enables
the greenhouse effect, which helps keep the surface temps where they
are. If we hadn't done something about it, the hole would have
eventually gotten bigger to the point where the earth would not be
able to maintain even temperatures. That problem was clearly man
made. That's why things such as Freon are no longer in production. The
Ozone layer has subsequently recovered, because earthlings stopped
destroying it. Now we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere that
the greenhouse effect has strengthened beyond design specs. Too much
greenhouse effect is as bad, or worse than too little. It needs to be
"just right", which it was until we screwed it up.


There are too many logical and factual flaws in your argument for me to
address them all, so I won't even try. But you might want to do some
research on the Montreal Protocol and the current state of the "ozone hole."

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective. There is no "normal and natural" climate on this planet. The
entire planet is in a constant state of flux -- we humans just happen to be
comfortable with the current climate and so we want to keep it this way. But
in doing so, we are fighting every natural process on Earth. Global Climate
Change is the norm, not an anomoly.

So much for global warming . . .
 

KLC Lewis wrote:

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective.

I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse
gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths
during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the
living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference
between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris
to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight
variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what
we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are
responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this
earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes,
clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in
swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond
our control short of a nuclear war.