[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NFC: Re: carlin?
Yes, Luke, you have very cleverly observed a trend. We
are in an interglacial period which has been slowly
moving in one direction. But this trend has been
happening even with relatively low CO2 levels over the
past several thousand years. With a (geologically)
sudden increase in these levels, trapping even
seemingly trivial amounts of additional heat in the
atmosphere (fractions of a watt per square meter) you
assume (know?) there is no change in the magnitude of
this trend? In your cleverness you ignore changes
evident in atmospheric temperature monitoring, sea
surface temperature monitoring and, more importantly,
in glacial ice core and sea sediment records.
It is with relief that I realize you have no real
power, only the ability to voice ignorance in a small
Boo Radley, Saraland, Alabama
--- mcclurg luke e <mcclurgl at washburn_edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Fully Prepared wrote:
> >If you doubt that some effect is happening, look at
> all the
> > disappearing alpine glaciers AROUND THE WORLD.
> And yet, according to the theory of global weather
> patterns for the last 1
> million years or so, they have done this repeatedly.
> It's nothing new, we
> ARE suppossed to be in a period of glacial retreat,
> are we not? That's
> what they taught us in school. Temperature
> fluctuations are a natural
> fact of the earth. I can't believe that the
> concentration of 0.03% of CO2
> in our atmosphere even doubling can have any
> profound effect. I think the
> methods used to "prove" global warming were/are
> sloppy and full of a lot
> of outright falsifying of data to further personal
> and political
> agendas. After all, grants are how the scientist
> usually gets paid, and
> if he/she says what the grant givers WANT to hear,
> then he/she remains in
> the money.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail