wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 00:54:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



So..... having ridiculed that genre of scientist, you now seek to cite
them as factually accurate? How incredibly bizarre!

Why ridicule a man whose career ended about 20 years ago?


Read my post again, Gene. I'm not ridiculing him. Instead, I'm praising
him for having the courage to admit that he was wrong back in the 60's and
70's.

And who do you suppose is going to fund scientists who dispute the concept
of global warming?

There is a lot more money to be made by companies like Dupont, GE, Alcoa,
etc. if the anthropogenic global warming hoax causes a reduction in the
use
of fossil fuels....but you conveniently ignore that fact, and only point
to
funding by the "oil interests".

Oh, I get it, now!

There is some sort of Evil Global Warming Conspiracy

Actually, gene, there is. And it's economically driven.

The Kyoto protocol was designed as a form of World tariff imposed on the big
ol' bad USA. It's designed to level the playing field between the more and
less industrialized nations.

Now the one good thing that I see coming from the Global Warming hysteria is
the global move towards alternative energy so that we don't have to send
U.S. forces to the Middle East any more.

The frantic urgency that you see coming from the anthropogenic global
warming theorists right now is because they're trying to strike while the
iron (or Earth in this case) is hot. Back in 1970, the alarmists were using
data showing 25 years of global cooling trends in order to enact
environmental protection regulations to protect us from the coming ice age.
Sure, we benefitted from the reduction of pollutants...but the justification
for enacting the legislation was a lie.

Today, the alarmists are using 35 years of warming trend data to justify
stringent reductions in the use of fossil fuels. They tell us that they're
afraid that if we don't act within the next decade, there will be
irreversible harm done. But the real thing that they're afraid of is
another 5-10 years of data showing a possible inflection point in the
warming trend leading to a cooling period.

Just look at the data in the past 10 years. 1998 was the hottest on
record...followed by several years of cooler data...and then a one-year blip
in 2006 again. The third hottest year on record was 1934. 1999, 2000,
2002, 2003, and 2004 barely register in the top 20. The trend has reached
its peak, and I believe we are about to head into a cooling period. If that
occurs before GW reduction standards are adopted, they'll be a lot of
alarmists with egg on their face. If we adopt GW reduction standards, and
*then* the temperatures fall, the alarmists can claim credit. That's why
there's an urgency.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:32:16 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message

Oh, I get it, now!

There is some sort of Evil Global Warming Conspiracy

Actually, gene, there is. And it's economically driven.

The Kyoto protocol was designed as a form of World tariff imposed on the
big
ol' bad USA. It's designed to level the playing field between the more
and
less industrialized nations.


It isn't hard to figure out who is doing your thinking for you:

"An advisor to President Bush on climate issues today claimed global
warming is a myth designed to 'hamper American competitiveness.' Myron
Ebell, a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, today told
Radio 4 that claims the climate is threatened are 'ridiculous,
unrealistic and alarmist'........."

Even Exxon sees the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" as so far out
on the lunatic fringe that they have stopped funding them.


I've never heard of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but they're hardly
the only group that has stated that GW is designed to hamper American
competitiveness.





Now the one good thing that I see coming from the Global Warming hysteria
is
the global move towards alternative energy so that we don't have to send
U.S. forces to the Middle East any more.

Which should have been done when this was a crisis in the mid 70's....
and none of this Middle East foolishness would ever have happened.


Agreed. But we were at the end of a 25 year cooling period in the early to
mid-70's, and they couldn't blame the cooling on fossil fuels back then.




The frantic urgency that you see coming from the anthropogenic global
warming theorists right now is because they're trying to strike while the
iron (or Earth in this case) is hot. Back in 1970, the alarmists were
using
data showing 25 years of global cooling trends in order to enact
environmental protection regulations to protect us from the coming ice
age.
Sure, we benefitted from the reduction of pollutants...but the
justification
for enacting the legislation was a lie.

So... you are going to look at only 10 years of data and make the same
mistake? That's just crazy!

No. Look at the past 10 years and you'll see an inflection point in the
data...and then look at the next 10 years, and you'll see a small cooling
trend that mimics the cooling period from the late 1940's to the early
1970's.


Today, the alarmists are using 35 years of warming trend data to justify
stringent reductions in the use of fossil fuels. They tell us that
they're
afraid that if we don't act within the next decade, there will be
irreversible harm done.

The above paragraph is rendered nonsense because the premiss is false.
Where on earth did you get the 35 year date? Even a school boy should
be able to go to Wikipedia and find that the trend has been mapped for
over 150 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming


There's an indisputable warming trend from 1975 until today.

But there's also an indisputable cooling trend from the late 1940's to the
early 1970's.



The overall slope of the curve is upward...and Prof. Bryson acknowledges
that. So do I. But as he points out, that's because we have been coming
out of a mini ice age for all of that time.