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

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



David Beorn <dbeorn@freenet.vcu.edu> wrote:
>On 31 Jul 1996, 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").

Good point, I think Scott went a tad overboard there.

>> 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???

David, I think you are a bit out of your depth on this one.  As I
indicated in my post, everyone is pretty clear that CO2 levels are
rising and that the increase is due to human activity.  There IS
a debate going on concerning climate change, but that's NOT what
the debate is about.  If you have specific references to suggest
otherwise, please present them.  Generic references that show, e.g.,
that everyone once believed the earth was flat, but it's not, will
not have much value as evidence.

>> 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!!!

I agree, Scott did not represent your quote accurately.   However,
the substance of your quote is dead wrong as well.

>> 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.  

Ah, but that is not what you said.  Maybe you need to think more
carefully about what you are writing.  There is a big difference
between debating what the effect of increased CO2 levels will be
and arguing that they are insignificant.  Your original quote
suggests strongly that you do not believe that higher CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are due to human activity, and you appear to
reiterate that position above.

>> ---
>> "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"?? 

It means, in this case, exactly what it appears to mean.  The
two climatologists are disagreeing with and saying there is a 99%
chance that the increasing temperature of the past century (they
disagree with your characterization of the temperature record also)
is due to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, notably
the burning of fossil fuels.

You are, of course, free to disagree with these guys.  There are
other experts who do disagree, although the scientific consensus
continues to move slowly but steadily against them.

>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 s=
tuff 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.  

I don't get that impression.  I cited an article from SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN that lays out the basics.  Let me give you the cite again.
It's Vol. 260, No. 4, April 1989, p. 36.  And while you are at it,
check out NATURE, Vol 382, 4 July 1996, pp. 39-46, for an article
that provides current state-of-the-art info and that NATURE's
reviewer called "the clearest evidence yet that humans may have
affected global climate."

So these are some people who want to be honest and tell the truth.
Please take a little time and read what they have to say.

Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association

PS Support renewable energy!  Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:

        http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html

Interested in energy and the environment?  The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news.  The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

For a subscription, send me an e-mail request.  Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tomgray@econet.org>



References: