[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy After Oil These Years!



David Beorn wrote:
> 
> 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                                     *
>          *-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
> 
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'
Go, Dave, GO!


References: