Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
wrote in message oups.com... Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would just ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there isn't such a thing as global warming. Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs By Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor posted: 01 November 2005 04:34 pm ET One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic costs of global warming. "Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences," concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance company. The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the United Nations Development Program. Costs already rising In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus to extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered. Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are projected for each case. Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters allow ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say. Broad implications "We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health, our economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. "Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard and insure a healthy future." Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the risk from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and businesses deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change since at least 2003. "Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks and potential business opportunities that can help minimize future risks." The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would just ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there isn't such a thing as global warming. Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs By Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor posted: 01 November 2005 04:34 pm ET One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic costs of global warming. "Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences," concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance company. The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the United Nations Development Program. Costs already rising In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus to extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered. Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are projected for each case. Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters allow ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say. Broad implications "We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health, our economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. "Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard and insure a healthy future." Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the risk from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and businesses deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change since at least 2003. "Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks and potential business opportunities that can help minimize future risks." The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes. If good, clean, proper science shows (and it does) that CFC's are a major contributor to global warming, then BushCo says that that science is wrong, then the debate is also whether it is happening. You see, it's happening at a FASTER RATE than ever before. What a remarkable coincedence that CFC's are at higher levels than ever before. So, in a way you are correct, but you are also wrong, because the administration is saying that the science doesn't support the fact that warming is happening at a higher rate than ever before. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would just ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there isn't such a thing as global warming. Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs By Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor posted: 01 November 2005 04:34 pm ET One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic costs of global warming. "Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences," concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance company. The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the United Nations Development Program. Costs already rising In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus to extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered. Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are projected for each case. Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters allow ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say. Broad implications "We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health, our economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. "Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard and insure a healthy future." Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the risk from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and businesses deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change since at least 2003. "Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks and potential business opportunities that can help minimize future risks." The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes. If good, clean, proper science shows (and it does) that CFC's are a major contributor to global warming, then BushCo says that that science is wrong, then the debate is also whether it is happening. You see, it's happening at a FASTER RATE than ever before. What a remarkable coincedence that CFC's are at higher levels than ever before. So, in a way you are correct, but you are also wrong, because the administration is saying that the science doesn't support the fact that warming is happening at a higher rate than ever before. Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? 20 miles of Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC thing? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would just ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there isn't such a thing as global warming. Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs By Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor posted: 01 November 2005 04:34 pm ET One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic costs of global warming. "Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences," concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance company. The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the United Nations Development Program. Costs already rising In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus to extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered. Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are projected for each case. Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters allow ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say. Broad implications "We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health, our economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. "Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard and insure a healthy future." Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the risk from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and businesses deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change since at least 2003. "Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks and potential business opportunities that can help minimize future risks." The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes. If good, clean, proper science shows (and it does) that CFC's are a major contributor to global warming, then BushCo says that that science is wrong, then the debate is also whether it is happening. You see, it's happening at a FASTER RATE than ever before. What a remarkable coincedence that CFC's are at higher levels than ever before. So, in a way you are correct, but you are also wrong, because the administration is saying that the science doesn't support the fact that warming is happening at a higher rate than ever before. Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? 20 miles of Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC thing? "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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:43:10 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would just ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there isn't such a thing as global warming. Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs By Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor posted: 01 November 2005 04:34 pm ET One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic costs of global warming. "Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences," concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance company. The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the United Nations Development Program. Costs already rising In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus to extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered. Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are projected for each case. Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters allow ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say. Broad implications "We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health, our economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. "Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard and insure a healthy future." Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the risk from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and businesses deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change since at least 2003. "Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks and potential business opportunities that can help minimize future risks." The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes. If good, clean, proper science shows (and it does) that CFC's are a major contributor to global warming, then BushCo says that that science is wrong, then the debate is also whether it is happening. You see, it's happening at a FASTER RATE than ever before. What a remarkable coincedence that CFC's are at higher levels than ever before. So, in a way you are correct, but you are also wrong, because the administration is saying that the science doesn't support the fact that warming is happening at a higher rate than ever before. Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? 20 miles of Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC thing? "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 Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in the world. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been. Note that the temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does that for urban areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and the data went back a 100 years or so, there was very little change. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:43:10 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Jeez, if Harvard Medical School and UN Development program would just ask BushCo and the right wing lemmings, they'd know that there isn't such a thing as global warming. Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs By Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor posted: 01 November 2005 04:34 pm ET One of the world's largest insurers warned today of the economic costs of global warming. "Climate change will significantly affect the health of humans and ecosystems and these impacts will have economic consequences," concludes a new study cosponsored by Swiss Re, a global re-insurance company. The research was done by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and also sponsored by the United Nations Development Program. Costs already rising In the report, 10 case studies outline current effects of climate change, from infectious diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus to extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods. Changes to forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water were considered. Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are projected for each case. Lyme disease is increasing in North America as warmer winters allow ticks to proliferate, the study concludes. Ragweed pollen growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma, the scientists say. Broad implications "We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health, our economy and the natural systems on which we depend," said Dr. Paul Epstein, the study's lead author and Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. "Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard and insure a healthy future." Swiss Re is a global re-insurance company, meaning it assumes the risk from the smaller insurance companies that individuals and businesses deal with. It has been warning about the costs of climate change since at least 2003. "Whereas most discussions on climate change impacts hone in on the natural sciences, with little to no mention of potential economic consequences, this report provides a crucial look at physical and economic aspects of climate change," Jacques Dubois, Chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation. "It also assesses current risks and potential business opportunities that can help minimize future risks." The debate is not over global warming, it is over the causes. If good, clean, proper science shows (and it does) that CFC's are a major contributor to global warming, then BushCo says that that science is wrong, then the debate is also whether it is happening. You see, it's happening at a FASTER RATE than ever before. What a remarkable coincedence that CFC's are at higher levels than ever before. So, in a way you are correct, but you are also wrong, because the administration is saying that the science doesn't support the fact that warming is happening at a higher rate than ever before. Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? 20 miles of Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC thing? "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 Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in the world. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been. Note that the temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does that for urban areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and the data went back a 100 years or so, there was very little change. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes There are hypothesis that the Urban areas are measured incorrectly. Most readings are from ground based thermometers, and over the years the areas around the thermometers have been built up a lot. And the extra buildings add an error to the reading. Spaced based readings have not changed much over the years. Lots less than the ground based readings. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:51:10 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in the world. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been. Note that the temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does that for urban areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and the data went back a 100 years or so, there was very little change. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes There are hypothesis that the Urban areas are measured incorrectly. Most readings are from ground based thermometers, and over the years the areas around the thermometers have been built up a lot. And the extra buildings add an error to the reading. Spaced based readings have not changed much over the years. Lots less than the ground based readings. Yes, the temp rise in urban areas would seem to be related to the quantity of concrete in urban areas. This would indicate that a return to wooden buildings with straw roofs would be in order. Asphalt and concrete roads also retain heat much better than dirt roads, so we should go back to dirt roads. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
Bill McKee wrote: Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? What an idiot, as usual. Why would *I* need to be here for a million years to know that global warming is occuring faster than ever before? I take it you don't realize that there have been core samples of earth and ice deposits over most of the world that backs this up? 20 miles of Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC thing? Local conditions vary. Anomolies occur. Too bad you aren't bright enough to realize that. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT Insurance Co Warns About Global Warming Cost
"John H." wrote in message ... On 11 Nov 2005 11:28:45 -0800, wrote: Bill McKee wrote: Faster than ever before. You been here for 1,000,000 years? What an idiot, as usual. Why would *I* need to be here for a million years to know that global warming is occuring faster than ever before? I take it you don't realize that there have been core samples of earth and ice deposits over most of the world that backs this up? 20 miles of Glacier Bay melted in about 1860. Not come back. Who did the CFC thing? Local conditions vary. Anomolies occur. Too bad you aren't bright enough to realize that. Where are all your back up graphs for the places *you're* talking about? Are you trying to reason with someone that has been drinking that much of the kool aid? -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Global Warming Update | ASA |