[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy After Oil These Years!
On 31 Jul 1996, Scott Nudds wrote:
> Date: 31 JUL 1996 15:44:28 -0400
> From: Scott Nudds <af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
> Newgroups: alt.energy.renewable, alt.save.the.earth,
> alt.sustainable.agriculture, talk.environment, sci.environment,
> sci.energy, bionet.agroforestry
> Subject: Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy After Oil These Years!
>
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Do you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing due to man?
> : >David Beorn does.
I never said that - all I said was that it was not significant compared to
the natural sources (you even quoted my statement below!). Certainly there
is a contribution by man to the CO2 in the atmosphere - only a fool would
say there is not (I realize that's what you think I am - so I'll save you
the fuel for the "flame").
> tomgray wrote:
> : Is *anyone* in the scientific community contending this is not the
> : case?
>
> Nope.
Hardly - except that those who don't toe the line don't get published as
often or as widely so the ones making outlandish conclusions don't look
bad (or some reason). There was even a survey a while back about that
and some other "widely held" beliefs that showed they were not so widely
held - maybe someone has that source???
> tomgray wrote:
> : Seems to me most of the skeptics are willing to acknowledge
> : that CO2 levels are increasing, and that we are responsible for
> : the increase.
>
> Most are, but some denialists are extremely ignorant...
>
> : David Beorn wrote:
> : Exactly - human CO2 is basically insignificant compared to what nature
> : produces.
Even with my quote directly below, you still get it WRONG!!! Amazing!!!
> tomgray wrote:
> : Their skepticism has to do with what the effect of
> : the increase on global climate will be.
>
> This is an area where there can be reasonable debate.
Exactly!!!! And THAT is what I dispute - the conclusion based on what
evidence we have.
> ---
> "The probability that the temperature increase of the last century has
> NOT been influenced by the greenhouse effect is less than one percent."
> -Climatologists Richard Tol and Aart de Vos, Free University of
> Amsterdam, A3
And what is the probability that the temperature decreases of the last
century has NOT been affected by something else (it' been an up and down
cycle as far as I know - maybe we're on an upswing now). Where is the hue
and cry about the ice age that "was" coming 20 years ago??? This
"scholar" quoted above may well be right but what does it really mean -
does it mean man is at fault - he only says "the greenhouse effect"??
There would appear to be a CYCLE of temperature changes, "holes" in the
ozone, etc. that we have not been able to pin to any phenomenon (at least
not that I'm aware of) and we have people spewing this stuff in the name
of science that is not (ultimately, yet) supported by the evidence. When
will we get someone who wants to be honest about this stuff and who will
tell the truth?? That's what I'd like to see.
Dave
*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
* David Beorn, david.beorn@pobox.com (internet) *
* Virginia FREENET *
*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'
Follow-Ups:
References: