"Tom P" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:MwNUi.837$4W7.124@newsfe19.lga... > Why do these guys always ignore the science? Why do they not provide > alternate science? Why do they ignore the visible effects of global > warming? Depends which science you read, junk science or imperical evidence. Depends if you blindly follow or think for yourself. Oh, don't get me wrong, the earth may very well be warming up. Isn't the first time, and not likely the last either. > He writes: "Is then global warming â?" a steady rise in the temperature of > the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, New York > City sinks into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land â?" > an imminent and mortal danger? You have been reading too much "sky is falling" junk science. First, lets assume the world is warming and the polar caps will disappear. Much the same as has recently ocurred on Mars. But I don't think Suzuki's diesel, or Gore's electric bill nor my SUT did it. Lets even ignore this fact. When sub-zero ice melts it shrinks for 2 reasons, one is molecular. Ice expands as it freezes. That is why frozen milk bottles often break, a grade school science experiment you can try at home. The second reason is polar ice has a lot of oxygen, nitrogen and other gases, it is not pure ice. So as it melts it shrinks in volume. Now once it has melted and shrunk in volume the warmer air will absorb much of the moisture, further reducing the amount of water. Sub zero temperatures will not dry out the air. In fact, plants may grow where there used to be a frozen wasteland. There is lots of scientific data to show that the world has gone extreme warm before, even much more warmer than even the "sky is falling" types estimate. And life flourished. This includes tropical ferns, lizards and dinosaurs on the north slope of Alaska. The world didn't end then, in fact biodiversity of the earth was at it's peek. Much the same as a country like Costa Rica has such a high bio-diverse range today and hasn't seen a big freeze for a very long time. Even though we can't predict weather for 3-7 days, what makes us think these turkeys can do it for 200 years? Hint, they have no clue what will happen and it is likely not all of it will be bad. Lets hope they are right. Because if the earth is cooling the opposite happens. We could once again see Toronto under 3 km of polar ice pack. Not much bio-diversity in that.

Petey White the KooK wrote: > Wooooooooosssssssssssssh > Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssh > Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssss > sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssh What's that noise Petey? The sound of your ego deflating.

"Tom P" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:MwNUi.837$4W7.124@newsfe19.lga... > Why do these guys always ignore the science? Why do they not provide > alternate science? Why do they ignore the visible effects of global > warming? > > Global warming deniers are all over the map when they try to discredit the > global warming theory. Buchannan is a good example of that. Doesn't Buchanan have a few drunk driving convictions. > > He writes: "Is then global warming â?" a steady rise in the temperature of > the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, New York > City sinks into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land â?" > an imminent and mortal danger? > > Put me down as a disbeliever." > > I interpret that as a denial that global warming exists. > > Then he writes: " While modest warming has taken place, there is no > conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence > Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels > and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good." > > I interpret that to mean global warming may exist, but it is minimal and > the activities of people have no effect on the climate. > > Then he writes "The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear > population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though > more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that > many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be > shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian > waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the > Arctic made more accessible to man." > > I interpret that to mean that global warming is happenning, but it is a > good thing. It can be. Much of the useless frozen north will be available for agriculture. > > How can anyone be credible if they show wandering opinions and no > scientific data to back it up? I've never met anyone in my life who thought of Buchanan as a leader or inspiration.

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter's call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1 -- Terry Pearson Pro- Israel and proud of it http://www.therightpoint.ca Shaping Canada's Destiny ========================== "I can walk upright" ~Peter White -------------------------------------------------- Penny On Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdt6wcK1cSQ ========================= Dumbski's obsession http://wildhorsedories.com/ctv.wmv The folks on Canadian politics are in unanimous agreement that Dumbski is an unemployed bum. ********************************************* Liberalism = Entitlement Culture= Corruption ------------------------------------------- There are some opinions so stupid, only socialists could hold them. ------------------------------------------- "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." - Thomas Jefferson ----------------------------------------------------------- "Tom P" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:MwNUi.837$4W7.124@newsfe19.lga... > Why do these guys always ignore the science? Why do they not provide > alternate science? Why do they ignore the visible effects of global > warming? > > Global warming deniers are all over the map when they try to discredit the > global warming theory. Buchannan is a good example of that. > > He writes: "Is then global warming â?" a steady rise in the temperature of > the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, New York > City sinks into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land â?" > an imminent and mortal danger? > > Put me down as a disbeliever." > > I interpret that as a denial that global warming exists. > > Then he writes: " While modest warming has taken place, there is no > conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence > Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels > and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good." > > I interpret that to mean global warming may exist, but it is minimal and > the activities of people have no effect on the climate. > > Then he writes "The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear > population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though > more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that > many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be > shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian > waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the > Arctic made more accessible to man." > > I interpret that to mean that global warming is happenning, but it is a > good thing. > > How can anyone be credible if they show wandering opinions and no > scientific data to back it up?

"Anarchore" <e@t.me> wrote in message news:mn.ec367d7abf5f8ce6.75909@t.me... > Tom P wrote : >> http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/glchange.html >> http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/ >> >> The coincidence of the Maunder minimum with the little ice age, as well >> as the excellent correlation of solar cycle length with Northern >> hemisphere air temperature over land masses, suggests that solar >> variations have an effect on the Earth's climate, although chance >> correlations cannot be ruled out. This is particularly strong caveat >> since a priori neither the number of sunspots nor the cycle length are >> expected to directly influence climate. Of more direct potential >> relevance for climate are the Sun's irradiance and the quantity >> underlying all solar activity, the magnetic field. Unfortunately, regular >> and detailed measurements of the Sun's surface magnetic field are only >> available for a few decades, not long enough for comparison with climate. >> Records of the solar irradiance are available for an even shorter length >> of time. In order to uncover a possible connection between solar >> irradiance and magnetic field variations and climate, it is necessary to >> extend the irradiance record to earlier times with the help of models. > > In other words, the effect of the sun cannot be confirmed or denied. > > The paid scientists on both sides can say one thing or another, but until > they can explain the heating of Mars and other planets, the issue of > man-made global warming should be put to rest. We should stop worrying > about 'carbon' and concentrate on real and more harmful pollution. Forget > about carbon credits, lets get the levys and dams built around coastal > cities, if science flunker Gores alarms are true. > > http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html > "Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the > warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the > increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email > interview last week. "The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth > and on Mars always will be practically parallel." > > Which brings us back to the observations of other planets. > > I couldn't find data on Mercury or Venus, possibly because of the lack of > markers like ice that can be seen to be melting as on Mars. > > > > Mars: > http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html > And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide > near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, > suggesting a climate change in progress. > > Jupiter: > Increased storms > > Saturn: > Increased storms > > Neptune: > http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml > - Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton > There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but > things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been > undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, > professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts > Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase." > > Pluto: > Pluto is warming up despite moving away from the sun in it's orbit. But our SUV and SUTs did it! (so they say) Funny, you do see the point. But so few do. A colossal farce. This is so far beyond mans control we can't comprehend it. Tax grab and to de-focus us from the real causes of real issues.