| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Angelfish off MASS and bleaching coral....(link to global warming series)
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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Angle fish, no way. A one eyed flounder, maybe.
wrote in message oups.com... 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. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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? Another good explanation for causes of "global warming" "Blame it on the Sun So what drives global climate, if not greenhouse gas concentrations? Well, maybe it's the sun. There are three variables affecting the Earth's orbit--orbit shape, tilt, and wobble--which profoundly affect weather patterns. The Earth's orbit does not form a circle as it moves around the sun--it forms an ellipse, passing further away from the sun at one end of the orbit than it does at the other end. During a 100,000-year cycle, the tug of other planets on the Earth causes its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short, broad ellipse that keeps the Earth closer to the sun, to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move farther from the sun and back again. At the same time the Earth is orbiting, it also spins around an axis that tilts lower and then higher during a 41,000-year cycle. Close to the poles, the contrast between winter and summer is greatest when the tilt is large. The Earth wobbles because it is spinning around an axis that tilts back and forth. Thus, a temperature drop occurs in the Northern Hemisphere when it tilts away from the sun; then the same thing happens in the Southern Hemisphere and again in the North, in a 22,000-year cycle. We know from simple physics that the additional energy added to the climate system by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about four watts per square meter (W/m2)--a very small amount of energy when compared to the 342 watts per square meter added by the sun's radiation at the top of the atmosphere, and small also when compared to natural variations in the amount of radiation the sun sends toward the Earth. The possible increase in energy stored in the atmosphere due to human activity is also small when compared to uncertainties in the computer simulations of the Earth's climate used to predict global warming. For example, knowledge of the amount of energy flowing from the equator to the poles is uncertain by an amount equivalent to 25 to 30 W/m2. The amount of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected by the surface is also uncertain, by as much as 25 W/m2. Some computer models include adjustments to the energy flows of as much as 100 W/m2. Imprecise treatment of the effect of clouds may introduce another 25 W/m2 of uncertainty into the basic computations. (2) These uncertainties are many times larger than the four W/m2 input of energy believed to result from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. It is difficult to see how the climate impact of the four W/m2 can be accurately calculated in the face of such huge uncertainties. As a consequence, forecasts based on the computer simulations of climate may not even be meaningful at this time." http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726 Of course harry, kevin and crowd will "blame it on Bush" like they do everything else......regardless of the facts |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill McKee wrote:
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? THe short answer- nobody knows for sure. There are good reasons... if you understand the science... to believe man's activities has played a large part in it. ... 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? There are much more and better documneted variations in macro climate. Around 900AD there was a period called the "Little Climactic Optimum" which changed the weather in Scandinavia to be more favorable for crops... more population, same land, somebody had to go... hence the Vikings. And Greenland was really green, for a while. ... Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. Hmm.. this is saying seems to have changed... I've heard it claimed many times that 'Mt St Helens caused more air pollution in one month than all mankind since the beginning of time' which blatantly ridiculous to anybody who can do a little simple math. It went right along with the ditto-head saying 'there are more trees in America now than when Columbus landed.' These are an ignoramus' way of justifying destruction of what little environment we still got left. Specifically, what ozone killing chemicals did Mt St Helens spew? What percentage of it's overall eruption gas? ... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. Not really. ... When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Oh yeah, it's those gol-durn pointy-head scientist what cain't git real jobs, trying to rip off us pore taxpayers! I suggest you take at least a minute or two and look at the status of Federal science funding. And turn off the Rush Limbaugh show, it seems to be causing daim branage. DSK |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
P. Fritz cut-n-pasted:
We know from simple physics that the additional energy added to the climate system by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about four watts per square meter (W/m2)--a very small amount of energy when compared to the 342 watts per square meter If the guys who published this think that a 1% net increase in the Earth's average temperature is insignificant, then you might as well not bother to follow any of the rest of their "science." This same article goes on to babble about the uncertainty of effects of cloud cover and atmospheric movement, which is basically admitting they have no idea what the effect of that claimed 1% increase in energy would be. But then, who cares if they're spouting ignorant BS as long as it supports your political agenda. Every once in a while, a state or local gov't body gets the bright idea to make PI equal three. Boy wouldn't that be simpler? But it just doesn't work. Nor do legislative attempts to make water run up hill. DSK |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
