wrote:
wrote:
An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.


Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing
as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist
loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the
war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step.


I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water
temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some
cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous
years.
It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the
climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any
extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone
"hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned
the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers
would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that
removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to
do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical
evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too)

Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy
our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the
species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water
temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several
years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped
parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate
runs of fish.

Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of
life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just
maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what
it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their
global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.


Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing
as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist
loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the
war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step.


I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water
temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some
cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous
years.
It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the
climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any
extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone
"hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned
the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers
would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that
removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to
do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical
evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too)

Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy
our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the
species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water
temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several
years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped
parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate
runs of fish.

Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of
life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just
maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what
it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their
global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture.


The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles
of earth, or something else? How much is man to blame? 10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. And has not come back. What caused this
warming? Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years. 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. Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

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.

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.


Just as much evidence that man's hand is causing the global warming as there
is that we are causing the magnetic field decrease. Very little. Krakatoa
in Indonesia almost killed the prairie settlers of the time. Caused a 3
year dip in temps where they had snow in July in the midwest and the crops
failed. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming. The Kyoto Agreement was done by 99% non-hard science
people. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from
rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. 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!!

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!!!!!:

New proof that man has caused global warming
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington





The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by
human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in
the world's oceans.



The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over,
at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it
right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great
to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett's team examined more than seven million
observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the
world's oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted
by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in
solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as
alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the
data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.


Then read this:

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made
greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The
researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they
describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean
temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within
the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural
phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to
the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said:
"We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a
global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about
it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world
has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are
the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over
the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary
system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly
into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the
oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a
fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer
simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the
climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects
could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely
nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under
President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have
signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers
have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties
and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear
from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made
greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the
oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to
re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage
to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met
Office's Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from
around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity,
and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to
predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed
warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of
similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a
politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations
start to question whether we can believe in these models', that
argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have
increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on
depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has
gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over
the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000
years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Those two articles should at least get your brain to work enough to
realize that the hand of man is, indeed bad for the earth. If not, let
me know, there's thousands and thousands of articles to back up the
fact.

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?

"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?

Kevin=Chicken little.

He will provide the proof after he finishes drinking his "schnapps whiskey"
LOL

Bill McKee wrote:
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?

Hmm, you need to look, I proved my point. Now, why are you trying to
change the subject, Bill? It's your typical m.o. because you are almost
always shown to be wrong, then you change the subject!!!! Do you not
call *7 MILLION OBSERVATIONS* conclusive??? Does that mean that you've
seen over seven million Autolite carbs that have a tag on a bolt?

"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."

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

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check
out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a
run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers,
ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest
12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.


Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing
as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist
loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the
war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step.


I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water
temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some
cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous
years.
It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the
climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any
extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone
"hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned
the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers
would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that
removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to
do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical
evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too)

Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy
our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the
species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water
temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several
years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped
parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate
runs of fish.

Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of
life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just
maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what
it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their
global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture.


The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else? How much is man to blame? 10k years ago was
a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? 1860 or there abouts 20 miles
of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. And has not come back. What caused this
warming? Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one
eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years. 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. Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

In the early middle ages there was another warming trend that allowed the
Vikings to establish colonies in Greenland, and had much to do with the
development of the European continent during that time.

The enviro wackos have jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon because that
is where the money is.

"Scientific conclusions should be based on observable facts, not political
agendas. Yet politics is driving the global warming debate. "Science, in the
public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to
bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens," Dr.
Lindzen lamented in his Wall Street Journal article. "This is what has been
done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible
practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions."

Yet rational decisions can be made. All that is necessary is to separate the
politics from the science and examine the known facts:

.. Climate variability: The climate is constantly changing, not just season
to season but year to year, century to century, and millennium to
millennium. In his Journal article, Dr. Lindzen pointed out that "two
centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little
ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a
warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling."
During the global cooling scare of the 1970s, some observers even worried
that the planet was on the verge of a new ice age.

.. The actual temperature record: The global mean temperature is
approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago. Based on
surface readings, the temperature rose prior to 1940, perhaps in response to
the end of the little ice age, which lasted until the 19th century. From
about 1940 until about 1975, the temperature dropped, sparking the
above-mentioned global cooling scare. More recently the temperature has been
rising again, sparking concerns about global warming.

The accuracy of the surface temperature record must be kept in mind when
evaluating trends measured in fractions of a degree. One significant problem
is the extent to which the data may be skewed as a result of urbanization.
Atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer wrote in a letter that appeared in
the May issue of Science: "The post-1940 global warming claimed by the IPCC
comes mainly from distant surface stations and from tropical sea surface
readings, with both data sets poorly controlled (in both quality and
location)." On the other hand, "surface data from well-controlled U.S.
stations (after removing the urban 'heat-island' effects) show the warmest
years as being around 1940." In his testimony to the Senate Commerce
Committee on July 18th of last year, Singer bluntly stated: "The post-1980
global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible."

Dr. Singer, who established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served as
its first director, is just one of many scientists who believe that
temperature data collected by weather satellites provides a far better
measuring stick than the surface readings. After all, the satellite data is
truly global, and it is not skewed by the urban heat effect. The satellite
data from January 1979 (when this data first became available) through May
2001 shows a warming trend of 0.038 degrees Celsius per decade - or less
than four-tenths of one degree per century. This minuscule rate of increase,
which could change, is far less than the dramatic increases in temperature
the forecasters of doom have been warning against.

.. Man's effect on the climate: In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, Dr.
Lindzen acknowledged in his May 2nd Senate testimony that "man, like the
butterfly, has some impact on climate." Obviously this was true when the
Vikings were able to cultivate Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland. But it
is true even today. In the April 3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal,
George Melloan noted that, according to "serious scientists," "the
greenhouse gases are a fundamental part of the biosphere, necessary to all
life, and . industrial activity generates less than 5% of them, if that."

.. Carbon dioxide's effect on climate: According to the global warming
theory, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has been
established, is causing the global temperature to rise. Most of the increase
in the surface temperature during the past century occurred before most of
the increase in atmospheric CO2. The temperature in 1940, recall, was not
much different than it is now. Yet, as astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas
pointed out in a letter published in the August 5, 1999 Wall Street Journal,
"more than 80% of the manmade carbon dioxide has entered the air since the '
40s."

One reason why the global warming theory may be flawed is that the amount of
atmospheric CO2 is not the only variable determining the earth's
temperature. It is not even the main "greenhouse" gas. In a chapter
appearing in the compendium Earth Report 2000, Dr. Roy Spencer, senior
scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, noted:
"It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the earth
's natural greenhouse effect, whereas carbon dioxide contributes most of the
remaining 5 percent. Global warming projections assume that water vapor will
increase along with any warming resulting from the increases in carbon
dioxide concentrations."

The projected "positive feedback" to the initial CO2-induced warming may not
occur to the extent that global warming theorists are predicting, however.
As Dr. Spencer points out, "there remain substantial uncertainties in our
understanding of how the climate system will respond to increasing
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." Moreover, the
natural greenhouse effect that heats the earth is moderated by natural
cooling processes. "In other words," concluded Dr. Spencer, "the natural
greenhouse effect cannot be considered in isolation as a process warming the
earth, without at the same time accounting for cooling processes that
actually keep the greenhouse effect from scorching us all."

.. The sun's effect on climate: One factor global warming theorists ignore is
the effect that the sun's changing activity may have on the global
temperature. A brighter sun may cause the global temperature to rise, and
vice versa. Dr. Baliunas, in the Wall Street Journal letter referenced
above, explained how the sun's activity can be measured by the length of the
sunspot cycle (the shorter the cycle, the more active the sun). Dr. Baliunas
' letter included a chart showing a close correlation between changes in the
length of the sunspot cycle and Northern Hemisphere land temperature for
1750-1978.

Climate Models

The known facts do not point to catastrophic global warming. That prediction
is not based on the known temperature record but on complicated computer
models that have been grossly inaccurate in the past. Those models do a very
poor job of properly applying all the myriad factors that shape the world's
climate, in large part because much of the mechanisms of climate remain
largely unknown.

Dr. Frederick Seitz warned against relying on computer models of the climate
in the Wall Street Journal for April 19th: "According to climate change
models, the earth's surface temperature should have increased substantially
in the past few decades because of man-made carbon dioxide already added to
the atmosphere. However, actual temperature measurements show that these
computer models have exaggerated the amount of warming by at least a factor
of two." In light of this failure, Dr. Seitz reasoned: "Since the computer
estimates of global warming for the past few decades have been cut back by a
factor of two or more, to bring them in line with the measured temperature
increases, the same correction should be applied to temperature predictions
for the coming century. This would reduce the projected warming in 2100 to
well within the range of natural variability of climate - the normal
fluctuations that occur in nature without any human influence."

Dangerous Solution

To head off the theoretical global warming threat, America and other
developed nations are supposed to subject themselves to a global warming
treaty that would result in an energy crisis so severe as to make California
's energy shortfall appear mild by comparison. Full implementation of Kyoto
would not save the earth from catastrophic global warming since no such
threat exists. It would, however, reduce our standard of living and
consolidate more power into the hands of those who intend to control and
allocate the earth's supposedly limited resources.

It is not too surprising that the Clinton-Gore White House supported Kyoto,
considering that administration's overt radicalism. Nor is it surprising
that Clinton never submitted the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for
ratification. He knew that the treaty would be dead on arrival, since that
body had earlier voted 95-0 not to ratify any global warming treaty that did
not include commitments on the part of developing nations such as India and
China. What is surprising is that George W. Bush is now being cast as an
anti-environment, anti-Mother Earth ignoramus for having criticized Kyoto in
its present form when he should have stated that no global warming threat
exists."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435624/posts