[meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven or a farce

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:07:55 -0700
Message-ID: <93aaac890706100307g55b51592ge943ec7618ddd0f7_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

It doesn't matter why the Earth is warming. The fact of the matter is
that people are dying of starvation thanks to the warming (yes, Rob,
it's happening - recheck your data because it's clearly completely
wrong, as far as global trends are concerned), and scientific fact
tells us that CO2, even if it isn't the direct cause of the warming
(but which it most likely is, based on what I learned in both physics
and AP chemistry classes - unless CO2 somehow defies the laws of
physics, it does contribute to warming, especially in the amounts that
human industry have released), it still accelerates the change and/or
makes it greater, harming innocent people without even the most basic
resources all the more.

Yes climate might be akin to change, but that doesn't mean that we as
humans shouldn't try to lessen the impact that such 'detrimental'
changes have on our less fortunate brethren.

What it comes down to is your attitude towards life in general. 'It's
not my fault, so why does it matter,' is one...another is that,
'people are suffering, so something should be done.'

Whichever one you pick is, of course, entirely up to you.

Just...turn the lights off when you leave the room, please.

Jason


On 6/10/07, Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hi, Rob, Michael, List
>
> Here we go again!
>
> "Global Warming - Scientifically Proven or A Farce?"
> Bong, bong, bong! I'm sorry, the Correct Answer is...
> Farce!
>
> > the vast majority of scientists as expressed in the United
> Nations ....
>
> Wrong! Cap'n Blood is referring here to the IPCC -- the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a document produced
> by beaurocrats, not scientists, of the UN. It lists 2500 of the
> world's "leading" scientists as authors. In actual fact, NONE
> of these scientists wrote ANY of the report, and the report
> does not contain their scientific conclusions, evidence, etc.
> The scientist named as "lead author" on the title page, John
> Christie, has repeatedly repudiated the report and called it
> "worthless." He's asked to have his name removed from it,
> but the UN has just as repeatedly refused to do it.
>
> The IPCC Report contains a section on the "dire" biological
> consequences of GW that contains such idiocies as the suggestion
> that GW will "allow" malaria to spread from the tropics north and
> south to areas now "safe" because mosquitoes "are not found where
> temperatures fall below 18 deg. C." They should be staked out on
> the banks of the Yukon River in summer so non-existent carnivorous
> mosquitoes can devour them. The worst malaria epidemic in history
> took place in Russia in 1922. The city of Archangel on the ARTIC
> OCEAN had 30,000 cases and 11,000 deaths...
>
> Why didn't the UN consult an expert? Well, they did. They consulted
> the WHO's and the world's leading expert on malaria, Paul Reiter of the
> Pasteur Institute. I could give you paragraphs of his credentials, but this
> post is going to be too long as it is. Google him. OK? They put his name
> on this idiocy. He told them to take his name off. They said, no, you
> contributed. He said, no, because you didn't listen to anything I said.
> The UN refused to remove his name from their garbage. He sued the
> UN in Belgium. They took his name off.
>
> You'll have to ask the beaurocrats at the UN why they wrote what
> they did in the IPCC Report. If you ever get a straight answer, let me
> know. But, whatever the reason, it wasn't the "science." I'm equally
> sure they had a reason. Wonder what it was?
>
> Next, we have the incorrectly titled "An Inconvenient Truth." This
> title was chosen because it sounds so much better than the accurate
> one: "A Convenient Lie." Highlights of the presentation are the display
> of the "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature rise, an artifact of faulty
> computer programming on the part of the modeler. The mathematical
> error that gave rise to it is acknowledged by every expert who's seen
> the code except, of course, by the man who screwed up. You can take
> his bad code and give it RANDOM temperature records and it will
> still produce a sudden sharp curve of warming... Garbage processor.
>
> The highlight of Mister Gore's presentation is the giant graph of
> world temperature and carbon dioxide levels which march up and
> down in lockstep, together, in a perfect fit, taken from the ice core
> data of 400,000 years. Man, that nails it! That's proof positive! Well,
> he does mention that there are "some difficulties with the ice cores,"
> but he never says what they are nor any word about them.
>
> The "difficulty" is this. The ice cores for 400,000 years show
> that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature by 800 to
> 1000 years. FIRST, the temperature goes up, THEN CO2 goes up...
> 800 years later. Does CO2 cause warming? NO. Warming causes
> CO2. The mechanism is easy to understand. CO2 solubility in water
> is very temperature dependent. Leave your soda sitting out on a warm
> day; it goes flat. When the planet warms, the ocean surface warms.
> Warm water cannot hold much CO2; it releases the CO2 that was
> dissolved in it when it was cold. The oceans "turn over' in 800 to
> 1000 years; new CO2 laden water is continually brought to the
> surface and warmed, until all the dissolved CO2 is in the atmosphere
> -- on the same time scale as revealed in the ice cores. QED.
>
> This one piece of evidence ought to be enough all by itself to drive
> a fatal stake through the heart of the fundamental flaw of "Warmism."
> Carbon dioxide, man-made or natural, does NOT drive climate
> change. But like Dracula in the horror movies of my childhood,
> "Warmism" comes back from the dead, time after time. It's not
> one set of cores, by the way, it's all the cores, from everywhere,
> Antarctica, Greenland, mountain glaciers in South America, decades
> of cores -- they all show the SAME thing.
>
> At any rate, a stage show run by a politician IS NOT EVIDENCE
> of anything, except that politicians will do or say ANYTHING that
> furthers their purpose, an observation that is not new and should not
> come as a shock to anyone. No doubt, you say, Mr. Gore is "sincere."
> So what? Ever been "sincerely" wrong? I note that his "sincerity"
> increases in direct proportion to his political rehabilitation. Could
> be a coincidence...
>
> Mike Farmer just chimed in with the scientific observation that
> it gets mighty hot downtown on the asphalt surrounded by a million
> people and their cars; how can you doubt we're warming the planet?
> Localized warming is trivial on the scale of the planet, meaningless.
> The raw heat produced directly by human thermal activity is a trillion
> times smaller than the heat involved in warming a planet by any
> observable amount.
>
> The problem is that it is exactly IN such places that we humans
> record temperatures "for the record." No wonder the "records"
> say we're warmer. It's called the Heat Island effect. Of course,
> compilers of world temperatures remove the most urban places
> from the long-term record, so as to "correct" for the Heat Island
> effect, but is it a big enough correction? Do they remove enough
> places or are they leaving in recording spots that are artificially
> warmed by human activities (not gases)? They say they are
> compensating adequately, but...
>
> The answer is NO. If you remove ALL urban weather records
> and use only RURAL weather stations, the planet has not warmed at
> all in 120 years. Using only rural stations, the US has the same
> climate regime it did in 1895. Ireland is colder now than a century
> ago. A series of NASA satellites have measured the temperature
> of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) for 30 years. They show
> the planet has COOLED slightly for thirty years. This being a very
> disturbing result to some people, the satellite data has been
> "re-calibrated" three times. Now, it shows warming! In thirty
> years, the Earth has warmed by 0.078 degrees C. Wow! It's
> a scorcher!
>
> This is particularly significant, as ALL climate models predict
> that the lower atmosphere (troposphere) will warm MORE than
> the Earth's surface. But the surface (according to weather stations
> surrounded by heat-wasting humans) has warmed while the
> atmosphere has not warmed -- a clear scientific impossibility,
> IF TRUE.
>
> As for the measurement of carbon dioxide concentration in the
> Earth's atmosphere, for ultimate scientific accuracy, it is (and has
> been) measured at one and only one spot on Earth. It has never been
> monitored anywhere else, because multiple measurements and more
> data could be "confusing." So, WHERE is it monitored? Why, on
> top of an active VOLCANO. No chance of any carbon dioxide
> "confusion" there, is there? Volcanoes don't have anything to do
> with CO2, do they? Sounds like good science to me... How about
> you? And we'll never know if it's not, because we don't monitor
> any other spot on Earth, and never have since monitoring started
> in 1958.
>
> Even if you accept the flawed temperature records accumulated
> during urbanization and industrialization of the planet as real, they show
> that 75% of the warming in the twentieth century happened between
> 1908 and 1940, a time with little increase in anthropogenic CO2
> (man-made CO2). There was slower population growth than today,
> a much smaller industrial plant and only a limited number of cars,
> yet the warming was more dramatic than today's warming even
> though there is no evidence of any big CO2 increase.
>
> In 1940, world temperatures began to fall and they continued to
> fall until 1975. The period 1940 to 1975 was a vast expansion of
> all the things that humans do to produce CO2, but while CO2 DID
> increase dramatically, temperatures just fell and fell. In the 30 years
> since 1975, temperatures have recovered and warmed about above
> what they were in 1940, sixty years ago. All of this depends on
> those weather stations in urban heat islands. of course. By the
> record of purely rural stations around the world, NOTHING has
> happened. (Life in the country is slow...)
>
> Charting CO2 versus temperature for the twentieth century shows
> no clear relationship. I think it shows NO relationship, but I'll be
> flexible... What about in past times? Throughout the last half billion
> years, there is nothing that suggests any relationship at all between
> CO2 and the planetary temperature. Nothing at all in the geological
> record supports the notion that carbon dioxide drives or determines
> climate in any way. We've had nasty ice ages when there was ten or
> twenty TIMES more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now and
> the planet was fairly well freezing its butt off.
>
> I could go through each and every fallacy of "Warmism." I could
> fill your arms with reams of reprints, stacks of data, to demonstrate it.
> But the actual debate is not the issue. Michael does not say it in such
> stark terms but he implies that the time for doubts is ended, that no
> reasonable and scientific person could possibly NOT believe in
> Warmism. Well, actually, he does say that, doesn't he? Hey, I'm not
> bitching about Michael that specifically; a great number of people
> act that way. The time for debate is over, they say. It's irresponsible
> to argue about the science when confronted by disaster. Just go along...
> Accept it.
>
> Whenever people say that there can be NO reasoned argument
> -- don't go there -- you are being sold a bill of goods, and truth is
> not among those goods.
>
> It is no accident that global warming funders are politicians,
> bureaucrats, activists, and a long list of people who like trying to
> control things (and people). It is NOT, as some people have asserted
> on this List, a left-wing or a right-wing thing. It cuts completely across
> old political divisions. Fox News pushes Global Warming and Rupert
> Murdock drives a hybrid car. (It's a Lexus, but it's a hybrid Lexus...)
> The Left did NOT invent global warming; the Right did, but it doesn't
> matter now. The next few years will show lots of ideological shifts,
> as Warmism becomes more universally believed (unfortunately) and
> more ways are found to make money from it.
>
> Global warming's rise to become a dominant doctrine is a case
> of cascade failure. There now exists a "global warming industry" that
> employs 60,000 to 100,000 people in science, government, and the
> media. Budgets have snowballed from tiny "worry" grants to billions
> in every major nation, and those people whose livelihoods depend on
> the threat of global warming are the same ones who are relied upon to
> prove it is so and to arouse the populace to its "dangers." They have
> succeeded and their jobs are safe. Will the media get more viewers
> by claiming disaster looms than they will by saying "weather changes
> all the time"? The latter, though true, is not very exciting. It will not
> sell
> soap nor soup.
>
> There are lots of scientists who understand that Warmism, if
> not utter tripe, is at best highly questionable, but it's not worth
> saying -- out loud. Not if you like getting the grants, not if you
> plan on becoming Department Chairperson someday, not if you
> want to "advance." What you really want is to study scavenging
> efficiency in squirrels. Ask for money for that, and you're going
> nowhere. Ask for money to study "The Effects of Global Warming
> on the Scavenging Efficiency of Squirrels in Appalachia," and you
> are having a great summer vacation watching your favorite rodent,
> which is all you wanted to do in the first place. It's easy. Just keep
> your mouth shut.
>
> The major change is recent. The media have now "turned" the
> population at large to Majority Warmist, paradoxically by persuading
> those who consider themselves the most "informed" first. Like
> the Captain. Of course, everybody is "informed" (everybody who
> watches television) nowadays. People have now reached a state of
> unreasoned belief that they hold to with a religious passion. To
> behave contrary to their expectation is not to disagree; it is to be
> a "bad person."
>
> To not believe in Warmism is to ask for Big Trouble. Rob said
> he thought warming might be cyclical (it is), and Michael's "feelings"
> were "outraged" because Rob's opinion was threatening "the
> survival of not only everyone I love, but of the majority of life
> forms on the planet."
>
> Whoa, Dude! Take another 'lude. Chill. Can't we all just get along?
>
> The Truth:
>
> 1, There is no unequivocal evidence that the Earth is warming, but
> it may be. If it has warmed, the climate has warmed and cooled by
> similar amounts in cycles of a few hundred years over the last
> millennium or more. It is not as warm now as it was 1000 years ago.
> IF warming continues at this pace until 2050, it will be as warm as
> it was 1000 years ago. I will point out that our ancestors and "the
> majority of life forms on the planet" got through that time 1000
> years ago with no trouble .
>
> 2. There is NO evidence that carbon dioxide is a primary cause,
> or driver, of climate change. Period. Not now. Not ever. There are
> a few episodes of sudden warming (and many more of sudden
> cooling) in geological history, but by and large there is no chance
> they have been caused by carbon dioxide. (There are some
> impact-related "spikes" that are suspicious in a few cases.)
>
> 3. There is even less evidence that man-made carbon dioxide,
> a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide total, is climatically significant
> in any way. (It's hard to have less evidence than NO evidence, so
> I guess that's just for emphasis.)
>
> 4. Nevertheless, Climate does change. In fact, Climate IS
> change. On long time scale, it's a serious problem. But not
> Warming. For 41 million years, it's been cooling. We're in
> an Ice Age. Global Warming would be nice, in my opinion,
> but it ain't happening. Change is not without cause. I'd like
> to know what the cause(s) is (are). To find out, we need some
> objective science. Wonder if we'll ever get any?
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael L Blood" <mlblood at cox.net>
> To: "Rob McCafferty" <rob_mccafferty at yahoo.com>; "Meteorite List"
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven ora
> farce
>
>
> Hi Rob,
> I am usually able to waylay any strong feelings posts
> might arouse in me. However, when talking about the survival
> of not only everyone I love, but of the majority of life forms on
> the planet it becomes a little more difficult for me to keep my
> feelings in check. However, I will try.
> I strongly suggest that if you have ANY belief in the
> scientific process at all that you examine the following:
>
> 1) The history and current movement WORLD WIDE by
> the vast majority of scientists as expressed in the United
> Nations .... After years of denial of scientific evidence, finally
> a treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.
> Of the 173 recognized countries on the planet, only 3 were
> and continue to be "hold outs" - of course, under King George,
> the US is one of them.
> (Clinton was guilty in spite of the urging of his vice
> president, as he always, always, always pursued the action
> that was politically most "favorable")
> >From this you can see that 98.3% of the various countries
> have chosen to head the warnings of their scientists on this matter.
>
> 2) Do at least a LITTLE research on the scientific reports that
> were requested by and sent to the current administration - and
> then ALTERED by said administration & the number of former
> advisors who have resigned as a result of the bull headed refusal
> of the administration to accept the truth, even when research
> was conducted by their own scientific advisors.
>
> 3) See Burk's "Before the Warming" (Made in the early 1990s,
> it is scary how exactly, as scientifically predicted, the results
> of global warmiing have progressed thus far.
>
> 4) See "An Inconvenient Truth."
>
> I am confident that you are intelligent and sane enough
> that, once having reflected upon the above, any reluctance to
> see the evidence in this matter will be gone.
> If, after reviewing the above, anyone remains unconvinced,
> I suggest they buy an ostrich ranch as that way they will be
> among those who are equally like minded and scientifically
> aware.
> Sincerely, Michael Blood
>
>
>
> on 6/9/07 2:41 PM, Rob McCafferty at rob_mccafferty at yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > This post simply underlines a theory I had presented
> > to me 10 years ago, that global warming is just a
> > phase.
> > If as little as 13000 years ago, the sahara was
> > watered grassland, and the sahara grew before
> > industry, how likely that we are the influence of
> > climate change?
> > I do not work for Shell, BP, Xxon, etc. I Just think
> > that humans have an over-inflated opinion of their
> > significance.
> >
> > Even so, I will confess to actively reducing my carbon
> > footprint over the last 2 years.
> >
> > Sorry, I know it's not met related.
> >
> > Rob McC
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sun 10 Jun 2007 06:07:55 AM PDT