In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

...in the DC area.

http://tinyurl.com/bwvc8hw

Don't worry the Russians think it is going to get colder for 200+ years.

Well, no. There are a couple of them who think the overall temp *MIGHT*
cool. The fact that global warming is occurring is just that, FACT.

http://tinyurl.com/czcpowq

But then again, you regressives don't let things like scientific facts
get in the way of FOX's non-science.

Your consensus just fell apart and the "science" is far from settled.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:54:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

the "science" is far from settled.

====

And that is most certainly true. Even though there is significant
evidence that warming has ocurred, the amount of warming measured does
not agree with the most widely accepted models. In fact the measured
warming has actually leveled off for inexplicable reasons. This does
not mean that we should take our eye off the ball but it certainly
calls out the need for additional science and less pushing of the
panic button. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is still a good
thing for many reasons but global warming/cooling is just one factor.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:30:35 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:54:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

the "science" is far from settled.

====

And that is most certainly true. Even though there is significant
evidence that warming has ocurred, the amount of warming measured does
not agree with the most widely accepted models. In fact the measured
warming has actually leveled off for inexplicable reasons. This does
not mean that we should take our eye off the ball but it certainly
calls out the need for additional science and less pushing of the
panic button. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is still a good
thing for many reasons but global warming/cooling is just one factor.

If fossil fuels are going to cause global warming and doom mankind, we
better just kiss our ass goodby. Europe and the US might cut usage but
Asia, Africa and the sub-continent certainly are not doing it. That is
where the future energy usage growth is coming from.
South America is even more troubling. They are draining the wetlands
and burning the rain forests in Brazil to grow sugar cane fuels. All
you have to do is drive through Clewiston to see the damage sugar
causes.

The one that really gets to me is the argument from the left about
Keystone. They act like, if we don't build the pipeline, Canada will
just abandon that cash cow.

Oh, I agree with your position that there are other things to worry
about, but that doesn't take away from the fact that global warming is
occurring and that the graphs directly correlate with the use of fossil
fuels. Except if you listen to FOX.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:55:57 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

that doesn't take away from the fact that global warming is
occurring and that the graphs directly correlate with the use of fossil
fuels.

====

That is simply not true. Measured global warming has started to
level out over the last 20 years and fossil fuel usage has not. None
of the existing models account for this leveling off so there is
something else going on that is not yet understood.

"Wayne B" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:55:57 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

that doesn't take away from the fact that global warming is
occurring and that the graphs directly correlate with the use of
fossil
fuels.

====

That is simply not true. Measured global warming has started to
level out over the last 20 years and fossil fuel usage has not. None
of the existing models account for this leveling off so there is
something else going on that is not yet understood.

--------------------

A recent report by Russian scientists claims that a global cooling
cycle is in store for the next 200-250 years or so.

It is based on solar activity. According to the report, the level of
solar activity goes in 11, 90 and 200 year cycles.
The 11 year cycle doesn't affect much but the 200 year cycles have a
pronounced affect on global climate. From the report:

"Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle,
a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle" Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t
bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the
200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in
for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar
activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in
the late 17th century�.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/archibald_1749_2049_projected_solar_cycle.png?w=64 0&h=354

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:30:35 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:54:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

the "science" is far from settled.

====

And that is most certainly true. Even though there is significant
evidence that warming has ocurred, the amount of warming measured does
not agree with the most widely accepted models. In fact the measured
warming has actually leveled off for inexplicable reasons. This does
not mean that we should take our eye off the ball but it certainly
calls out the need for additional science and less pushing of the
panic button. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is still a good
thing for many reasons but global warming/cooling is just one factor.

If fossil fuels are going to cause global warming and doom mankind, we
better just kiss our ass goodby. Europe and the US might cut usage but
Asia, Africa and the sub-continent certainly are not doing it. That is
where the future energy usage growth is coming from.
South America is even more troubling. They are draining the wetlands
and burning the rain forests in Brazil to grow sugar cane fuels. All
you have to do is drive through Clewiston to see the damage sugar
causes.

The one that really gets to me is the argument from the left about
Keystone. They act like, if we don't build the pipeline, Canada will
just abandon that cash cow.

Oh, I agree with your position that there are other things to worry
about, but that doesn't take away from the fact that global warming is
occurring and that the graphs directly correlate with the use of fossil
fuels. Except if you listen to FOX.

There two critical issues facing the world and they are access to potable water and to oil.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:37 -0400, BAR wrote:

There two critical issues facing the world and they are access to potable water and to oil.

==========

You should change the word "oil" to "energy".

And there is a third critical issue and that is unchecked/out of
control population growth.

There is only a finite amount of oil and supplies will eventually
dwindle no matter how much is newly discovered. At some point it will
become expensive enough that burning it for energy will be
unthinkable. It will have much more value as an industrial/chemical
feedstock.

On the other hand, if global population growth is not reigned in, no
amount of water or energy will be enough.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:23:45 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:37 -0400, BAR wrote:

There two critical issues facing the world and they are access to potable water and to oil.

==========

You should change the word "oil" to "energy".

And there is a third critical issue and that is unchecked/out of
control population growth.

There is only a finite amount of oil and supplies will eventually
dwindle no matter how much is newly discovered. At some point it will
become expensive enough that burning it for energy will be
unthinkable. It will have much more value as an industrial/chemical
feedstock.

On the other hand, if global population growth is not reigned in, no
amount of water or energy will be enough.

Let's see, one of my first papers in college was about population growth, with the Club of Rome
being a source of information. This was in the early 70's. That would be about 40 years ago, and I
don't see the population growth dwindling by much.
--

John

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:08:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

On the other hand, if global population growth is not reigned in, no
amount of water or energy will be enough.

Let's see, one of my first papers in college was about population growth, with the Club of Rome
being a source of information. This was in the early 70's. That would be about 40 years ago, and I
don't see the population growth dwindling by much.


=========

It was true then and it's even more true now. It has actually gotten
much worse in fact since India and China have become industrialized
since they are now consuming and polluting much more per capita than
previously.

The catholic church's position on birth control is only part of the
problem - more of an issue in the western hemisphere. Even here
however the cultural issues outweigh the religious ones.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:23:45 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:37 -0400, BAR wrote:

There two critical issues facing the world and they are access to potable water and to oil.

==========

You should change the word "oil" to "energy".

And there is a third critical issue and that is unchecked/out of
control population growth.

There is only a finite amount of oil and supplies will eventually
dwindle no matter how much is newly discovered. At some point it will
become expensive enough that burning it for energy will be
unthinkable. It will have much more value as an industrial/chemical
feedstock.

On the other hand, if global population growth is not reigned in, no
amount of water or energy will be enough.

And the Catholic Church, with its policy on birth control, isn't helping the situation much.
Although, I'd have to admit it probably has little influence in China, India, Pakistan, etc, it most
assuredly has influence in Mexico and lands south. I believe Mexicans (or Hispanics) are the fastest
growing
--

John