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

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



David Beorn wrote:
: I have not contended that they aren't increasing CO2 - I only questioned
: whether they were the major contributor.

  We are the <only> contributor to the excess.


David Beorn wrote:
: I also dispute the contention
: that this is the cause of so-called "global warming" - what happened to
: the ice age many scientists were predicting a few decades ago???

  Can you name a few scientists predicting an impending ice age?  The
kind of predictions you are referring to did not appear in the
scientific literature.  They did appear in Newsday and the National
Inquirer.  If someone tells you that warnings of impending ice ages were
issued by the worlds scientists, they are either ignorant of the facts
or are lying.


David Beorn wrote:
: I've not seen any facts yet that convince me that we KNOW these
: things are happening and you also have not added any concrete evidence to
: the mix.  I could be wrong and would gladly admit it if there were some
: evidence.  What are the "right" things to read??

  Well, lets see, we have observations of an average global temperature
rise of .5', measurements of a rise in ocean temperatures, measurements
of a rise in ocean levels, measurements of retreat of glaciers all over
the world, portions of Antarctica that are usually ice locked and snow
covered are now open to the ocean, and snow free (for at least part of
the year).  In addition, there has been an observed (but small) increase
in rate of severe weather incidents, and to cap it all off, the 10
hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years.

  Now while much of this information is tentative, taken as a whole, it
is very convincing, especially since the observations are predicted in
kind by computer models and simple common scientific sense.  CO2 acts
to reflect infrared radiation back down to the earth.  More CO2, more
reflected heat and the higher the temperatures.

  Where do you find the right things to read?  Virtually any scientific
journal that is peer reviewed.  How about reading the IPCC report.  This
is about as definitive as you can get.


David Beorn wrote:
: How about some source that has some integrity and will not compromise
: truth/true science for political or philosophical purposes.

  IPCC.


David Beorn wrote:
: But if
: indeed humans are NOT the major contributor to CO2, then there may be some
: other source you want to attack.

  The key word is <IF>.  Please search the net or the scientific
literature for other explanations for increasing levels of CO2.  You do
realize don't you that the CO2 emitted by humans can be distinguished
>from  the CO2 emitted by the biosphere.


David Beorn wrote:
: Now, obviously, if the major contributor was volcanos, there's not
: much you can do.

  Not about the volcanoes, but we could still reduce our CO2 emissions
to compensate.


David Beorn wrote:
: That is what YOUR source says - but my source says that volcanic gases 
: contribute FAR more to this than man.  

  Where are you getting this tripe?


---
"This administration is committed to a balanced budget, and we will
fight to the last blow to achieve it by 1984." (Reagan, 9/15/81)

"In the first place, I said that [a balanced budget] was our goal, not a
promise." (Reagan, 12/17/81)


-- 
<---->