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

From: Trace <temetnosce_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:22:15 -0700
Message-ID: <032201c7abb6$2e917270$b2ea5218_at_userdb9uc8zjg7>

I agree with Michael Farmer completely.

In Vancouver, Canada, over the last couple years, we have started getting
the "pinapple express" in winter/spring. These are tropical storms with high
winds. The winds are so high that many of the trees in Stanley Park were
blown down. Not just old growth but young, healthy trees. The temperatures
have also been rising in the summer over the last few years. The weather
gets more and more unusual here.

The evidence, for me, is clear.

Trace

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael L Blood" <mlblood at cox.net>
To: "Marc Fries" <mfries at gl.ciw.edu>; "Meteorite List"
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven or a
farce


on 6/10/07 9:53 AM, Marc Fries at mfries at gl.ciw.edu wrote:
> If your only source is "An Inconvenient Truth", then I'm not
> surprised to see you go straight to the "anyone who doesn't think as
> I do is an idiot" approach.
------
No, Marc,

        As clearly outlined below, in my original post I NUMBERED
4 examples I consider to be rather overwhelming evidence.

    The documentary to which you refer was THE LAST of 4 of
the examples given (see my original post below). How you can
pick out the last example given and pronounce it as "your only
source" is beyond me and so clearly distorting of what I said I
really don't see any point in taking further part in a dialog so
emotionally charged people can't even read what has been
stated.

I feel like I am attempting to communicate with the
administration prior to the hurricane that flooded New Orleans.
If people don't want to hear something, they just don't want to
hear it.

        How people manage to make this out to be a "political
issue" is beyond me and I, personally, have no further need
to discuss it within such a context. It would be just as productive
to debate evolution with a fundamentalist committed to
creationism.

        Since people perceive this (though I don't know how)
as a "left wing conspiracy" let's just leave it behind. Such
attitudes make any attempts at scientific debate an impossibility.

        Best wishes, Michael

> On Jun 9, 2007, at 10:12 PM, Michael L Blood wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> That's just flat-out wrong. The Kyoto accords were rejected in this
> country not by Bush or even Clinton, but by the US Congress that
> voted unanimously (95-0, i.e. both Dems and Republicans) to reject
> it. It is a poorly thought-out document that was drafted literally
> in a matter of hours, and it treats the US economy as if it were no
> different than, say, Denmark's. It also neglects a vast proportion
> of the world's pollution by excluding "developing" nations such as
> Iran and China, both of which have air pollution problems that are
> simply horrific. Congress was right to reject it. We need a global
> agreement that is based on the input of scientists, economics experts
> and other qualified personnel, and not on the currently trendy fad of
> anti-American sentiment.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Again, this is flat-out wrong. You're placing your political bias
> above scientific reasoning, just as "An Inconvenient Truth" does. As
> a scientist who has examined the data impartially, I can attest that
> the case for global warming as a man-made event has not been made.
> We have temperature and CO2 measurements from the past ~100,000 years
> thanks to ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland (which match each
> other almost perfectly) that show that atmospheric CO2 cannot
> possibly cause global warming independent of other factors, otherwise
> we would have seen a 3-4 degree celcius rise worldwide in the past
> few decades alone. As it is, the world's temperature has changed by
> about 1 degree, which may well be in tempo with the natural rise in
> temperature that has occurred since the end of the last ice age. See
> for yourself:
>
> http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>
> Note especially: "The present mean temperature is about +.8C. Recent
> peak temperatures have been in the +1.4C to +1.6C range."
>
> Other aspects of the claim of CO2 alteration of global temperature
> are unproven, most importantly a change in oceanic carbonate
> precipitation which as far as I can tell simply hasn't been
> measured. Additionally, to this day we cannot state with certainty
> an answer to the very basic question of whether historic changes in
> Earth's temperature are the result of atmospheric, oceanic or solar
> effects. Simply put, we're not smart enough at present to say what
> causes planetary climate change, and to state otherwise is
> scientifically misleading if not outright fraud.
>
> As far as " the bull headed refusal of the administration to accept
> the truth, even when research was conducted by their own scientific
> advisors.", let me remind you of one of the adminstration's own
> advisors in the form of the head of NASA, who earlier this week
> stated that he isn't convinced that global warming is caused by
> humans or that it is something we can change. Now consider this -
> who should have the voice with the greater weight on this subject, a
> career planetary scientist, or a politician with a long history of
> inventing "scientific agreement" on controversial subjects in order
> to win votes (see Gore's previous behavior in producing the National
> Nanotechnology Initiative, which has washed his hands of in the past
> few years)?
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That's one source. There are many. Even better, the raw data is
> available for your analysis (see my link above) since we live in the
> "information age" and all.
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> This is one scientist who 1) isn't going to resort to personal
> attacks and 2) isnt' going to buy an ostrich farm or contribute to
> Gore's campaign anytime soon.
>
> Cheers,
> MDF
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>> --- "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Tom, List
>>>>
>>>> Dean Bessey used to (may yet) sell neolithic
>>>> arrowheads from NWA. Most are probably 9000 to
>>>> 13,000 years old, from the time that the Sahara
>>>> was a well-watered grassland with scattered forest
>>>> stands and lots of big game, well illustrated in
>>>> the rock drawings the neolithic peoples left behind:
>>>>
>>> http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&q=
>>> +site:images.jupiterima
>>> ges.com+petroglyphs+sahara
>>>> You just got a freebie.
>>>>
>>>> Sterling K. Webb
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: <STARSANDSCOPES at aol.com>
>>>> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:35 PM
>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Arrow head found in box of
>>>> Moroccan
>>>> Meteoritefragments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi List, You all will think I am nuts. I was
>>>> going through a box of small
>>>> meteorite fragments sorting out interesting pieces
>>>> and attractive
>>>> individuals. It was out of 20 Kg. small stuff, all
>>>> unsorted and very dirty
>>>> and I found
>>>> an arrow head. Nice shape. About 1 inch total
>>>> length.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any arrow heads found in the region where
>>>> meteorites would be
>>>> shipped from Morocco?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ************************************** See what's
>>>> free at
>>>> http://www.aol.com.
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>> _________
>>> ______
>>> Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're
>>> surfing.
>>> http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> --
>> If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
>> --
>> Success is not counted by how high you have climbed but by how
>> many people you brought with you. ? Anonymous
>> --
>> I have given two cousins to war and I stand
>> ready to sacrifice my wife's brother.
>> Artemus Ward
>> --
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>

--
If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
--
Success is not counted by how high you have climbed but by how
many people you brought with you.  ? Anonymous
-- 
I have given two cousins to war and I stand
ready to sacrifice my wife's brother.
         Artemus Ward
--
--
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Received on Sun 10 Jun 2007 07:22:15 PM PDT