We really do not have scientific evidence that the average temperature has
risen or that the ocean levels have risen. For every location that shows a
rise in either there are just as many that show declines. Global warming
does not have any real science behind it. There are no long term climate
prediction models that are any more than pure speculation.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the
atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from
3km below the surface of Antarctica.

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be
exceptional.

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea
levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.

Treasure dome

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region
called Dome Concordia (Dome C).

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m
into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back
in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the
mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of
temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon
dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas
Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130%
higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely
exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last
650,000 years."

Stable relationship

Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two papers
analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years.

This extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near
Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the past.

The extra data is crucial because around 420,000 years there appears to
have been a significant shift in the Earth's long-term climate patterns.

Before and after this date, the planet went through 100,000 year cycles of
alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial periods.

But around the 420,000 year mark, the precise pattern changed, with the
contrast between warm and cold conditions becoming much more marked.

The Dome C core gives data from six cycles of glaciation and warming; two
from before this change, four from after.

"We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even
before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker.

"The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between
climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2
in climate regulation."

Epica scientists will now try to extend their analysis further back in
time.

Water rise

Another study reported in the same journal claims that for the last 150
years, sea levels have been rising twice as fast as in previous centuries.

Using data from tidal gauges and reviewing findings from many previous
studies, US researchers have constructed a new sea level record covering
the last 100 million years.

They calculate the present rate of rise at 2mm per year.

"The main thing that's changed since the 19th Century and the beginning of
modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and
more greenhouse gases," said Kenneth Miller from Rutgers University.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body which collates
scientific evidence for policymakers, concludes that sea level rose by
1-2mm per year over the last century, and will rise by a total of anything
up to 88cm during the course of this century.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...ch/4467420.stm
--
Religious fundamentalism: a threat abroad, a threat at home.

"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no long
term climate prediction models that are any more than pure speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties* have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties* have
great respect for the environment?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.

Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?

I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties*
have great respect for the environment?


Pretty much.

Have you ever seen the world in it's full spectrum of color? You might want
to give it a try some day........the black and white stuff just doesn't make
it. ;-)

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:50:53 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties* have
great respect for the environment?


The environment is something far too important to be decided along
party lines, but one only needs to listen to "talk radio" to see that
a line has been drawn in the sand with respect to the stewardship of
our lands and our planet.

I'd like to leave enough of our planet unspoiled so that my
descendants will have a place to enjoy hunting and fishing the way I
have. Sadly, I'm not sure that is going to happen.


Me too. In fact, I cannot think of anyone who would want to hand over a
world of pollution to their children and grandchildren, although China and
many 3rd world countries could give a damn. That was the problem with
Kyoto......they were not to be bound to any of the standards. Perhaps our
efforts and concerns should be directed across the pond and the US and its
citizens are generally doing a pretty good job. ;-)

Perhaps you can cite some important examples of your claim (as I perceived
it) of Democrats caring *more* about the health of the planet.

BTW: Talk radio does not speak for all Americans nor define how all or most
Democrats or Republicans think.

Harry Krause wrote:



Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment


Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have disregard for the environment

Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look at
Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K earnings.


The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common weal or
science.


Care to offer some examples Krause?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most
*righties* have disregard for the environment
Pretty much.


Judging by this newsgroup..some of the righties have the greatest
regard for how quickly they can stuff dollars in their pockets. Look
at Bert for example...he's as proud as a peacock with his $ 115K
earnings.

The Bush Administration may well be the most anti-environmental and
anti-science administration of the last 100 years. Their positions are
based upon money and crazed religious beliefs, not on the common weal or
science.


Care to offer some examples Krause?


No need to waste any of my time...the examples are everywhere.


In other words, you can't. LOL!

" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are
no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.


Why is your world so black and white Krause? Do all or most *righties*
have
disregard for the environment and conversely do al or most *lefties*
have
great respect for the environment?



It is just another symptom


" There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists.
They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please
don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it
again harder to prove that they were right the first time"

For hundreds of millions years the planet had a considerably milder climate.
Was that wrong? The earth's climate is changing all the time for a million
reasons. We are just one. Perhaps our actions are delaying the next ice
age. Would that be bad? We have sampled the tiniest fraction of the
planet. It is like basing an analysis of a square mile of land on a
teaspoon of dirt from the middle. We can't even predict the weather next
month much less a hundred years from now.

We may be affecting the climate. We may not. But you can't claim it is
real science. In real science you can prove your assertions. No one can
prove that human activity is changing the climate. All you can do is
speculate. Is it bad to pollute? Of course it is. Nothing wrong with
being environmentally responsible. But that doesn't mean I believe
pseudoscience. And global warming is pseudoscience.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
-rick- wrote:
"JamesgangNC" wrote ...

Global warming does not have any real science behind it. There are no
long term climate prediction models that are any more than pure
speculation.


Wasn't there some one wanting help tracking loons?


I guess the righties figure their rationalizations help them keep on
keeping on with their disregard for the environment.