Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> At 9:45 AM -0500 1/25/01, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> >Follow the money. What they want are huge
> >energy/carbon taxes levied, huge government bureaucracies to study the
> >problem and propose the international regulation of energy policies. You
> >have scientists, who normally struggle for grant and scholarship money,
> >who are proposing solutions that will give them nice secure civil
> >service jobs with big budgets and the authority to tell evil
> >corporations how to run their companies. This is all part of the
> >green/socialist agenda.
>
> As we used to say on this list, "extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence." Do you have any evidence that global
> warming is really a giant hoax by scientists to get grant money?
> What you said above is just speculation and could be said by any
> conspiracy theorist about any conspiracy theory. I keep hearing
> these claims from Rush Limbaugh and the like, but I never see any
> hard scientific data on any of the science groups. Where does one go
> to find real data and not just political positioning?
>
> The article you originally quoted in this thread, for example, had
> nothing to do with global warming. It studied temperatures millions
> of years ago. You presented it as evidence against global warming,
> even though the authors indicated their support for the claims of
> global warming. This was not evidence against global warming, even
> though you presented it as such. I have followed many such examples
> of "evidence", only to find that the original article did not say was
> the proponents thought it did.
>
> We have ice-core studies and tree ring studies that claim to show
> that average temperature has suddenly risen in the last 100 years
> when compared to the previous 100,000 years. Where do I find studies
> that claim evidence that the ice-core and tree ring studies are
> wrong, or give different evidence that temperatures have not risen?
> I have not been able to find the actual scientific studies to
> determine the issue for myself.
Your 'suddenly risen' temperatures are actually less than 1 degree. That
is not any sort of significant measurement whatsoever. Moreover, these
measurements are from weather stations that have existed in locations
that have experienced very high levels of local real estate development
and expansion of transportation uses that drastically increase the local
heat levels above those caused by weather. In these studies I see no
accounting whatsoever of the city heat effect on temperature
measurements.
here is some evidence of other causes, from an anti-creationist site, no
less:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm
> Probably the best arguments for the magnitude of ice age time is the record from long cores taken through the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. Gish's
> outrageous statement (1992) that an armored dinosaur had been found in the ice of Antarctica might be taken as a Mesozoic age for the ice, but in reality the fossil
> was found in Mesozoic rocks of the Santa Marta formation (Weishampel, 1990). In the Antarctic ice, summer and winter bands can be counted back, year by
> year, to at least 30,000 years (Anderson and Borns, 1994) with overall core lengths indicating total time spans of several hundred thousand years. Dates from
> counting the annual layers in the cores can in turn be correlated with C14 dates from the CO2 contained in entrapped air bubbles, with C14 dates from tree ring
> correlations which can be counted and correlated back 12,000 years, with annual sediment layers from glacial lakes, with dates from the pollen records of climatic
> change in Europe and America, and with radiometric dates and rate of sedimentation dates on deep sea cores. Most of these dates can in turn be stitched together
> and mutually supported by paleomagnetic dates from other areas and dating techniques (summaries by Anderson and Borns, 1994). As new evidence is gained
> and dating techniques are refined, all these lines of converging evidence show increasing good correlations with the Malenkovich cycles, based on Newtonian
> celestial mechanics, an additional set of time determinations linked to modern astronomic measurements. To argue in the face of such massive and interlocking
> evidence that the entire span of the Ice Ages constituted only the last few thousand years must represent a supreme example of faith overcoming reason.
The fact is that over the last 3.2 million years, things have cooled
down 10 degrees. Any 'global warming' we instigate or that is caused by
the normal celestial mechanics (which actually fit climate change far
better than CO2 levels) of the earth is nowhere near the high
temperature levels that existed 3.2 million years ago, so any effects of
global warming will not be 'catastrophic'. Antarctica will not collapse,
despite the continuing claims of those greens who only listen to studies
that favor their prejudices. The fact that the media has chosen to bury
and ignore the results of my cousin's own work proving the long term
stability of the Antarctic Ice Cap indicates to me that there are
agendas at work here.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:25 MDT