[Grovenet] An-Inconvenient-Truth

[Eric Canon]

--- Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:

>
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2417
> 

Here's a quote from this article Steven:

The bizarre belief that we can modify or even
control the world's climate by emitting less (or
even zero) carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
shows that the transition from sorcery to science
is more difficult than might appear.

http://www.pathfinder.com/Asiaweek/97/1010/feat2.html

This was written six years ago, and it discusses
El Nino weather patterns. I'm not sure why this
is germane to this discussion.

> http://www.theweathermakers.com/

Good site! Check out the eleven things each of us
can do to help the planet:

http://www.theweathermakers.com/globalwarming/

> http://www.off-road.com/green/globalwarm.html

Here's the opening paragraph from this gem of
denial written in 1994 (!). Gosh Steven, surely
you can find something better than this! Here is
the quote:

"Apocalyptic visions, such as those conjured up
by environmentalism,
have been made throughout Man's history and
invariably turn out to be
false. They attract widespread interest
principally for the reason
that bad news is more newsworthy than good news.
Thus the prediction
of catastrophes due to global warming, even on
very inconclusive
evidence, is likely to be treated with
considerably more importance
than the prediction that things might not be so
bad after all. By
contrast, the non-doomsday scenario demands far
more evidence in order
to satisfy its critics."

> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

And this one is from 2001 and I don't have the
time to discover why you posted this.

> Analyses of overall temperature trends in the
> low to mid-troposphere and
> near the surface since 1958 are in good
> agreement, with a warming of about
> 0.1°C per decade. Since the beginning of the
> satellite record (1979),
> however, low to mid-troposphere temperatures
> have warmed in both satellite
> and weather balloon records at a global rate of
> only 0.04 and 0.03°C/decade
> respectively. This is about 0.12°C/decade less
> than the rate of temperature
> increase near the surface since 1979. About
> half of this difference in
> warming rate is very likely to be due to the
> combination of differences in
> spatial coverage and the real physical affects
> of volcanoes and ENSO (Santer
> et al., 2000), see also Chapter 12. The
> remaining difference remains
> unexplained, but is likely to be real. In the
> stratosphere, both satellites
> and weather balloons continue to show
> substantial cooling. The faster rate
> of recession of tropical mountain glaciers in
> the last twenty years than
> might have been expected from the MSU and
> radiosonde records remains
> unexplained, though some glaciers may still be
> responding to the warming
> indicated by radiosondes that occurred around
> 1976 to 1981.
> 

This was Ronald Reagan's pitch, that human
activity is nothing when you compare it with
mother nature. He was wrong then, and certainly
it would not be a stretch to say people do not
view this kind of statement as accurate today,
when you  look at the evidence about how human
activity is affecting the planet. 

Steven, you are a perfect example of what I
described earlier: people who come to a position
and then go in search of facts to support their
position. This is not science, it's politics, and
bad politics at that. Such an approach does not
benefit humanity and is not an accurate depiction
of reality. Very sad and dangerous stuff.