Re: Tough time to sell Global Warming theory....

Fred Kasner wrote:
hhc314@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_re_us/winter_weather

Harry C.


Almost certainly there is a component of some global warming that is
anthropogenic. However my opinion is that natural agencies over which
mankind has no control will be the major source of climatic variation as
it has been for a very long time.

Note that in a period of about 100 years the eastern third of the USA
was essentially denuded of trees when it was heavily forested before the
Europeans arrived. Since then this region has become covered by trees
and other plants in amounts that even exceed the amount found there at
European first incursion. The major contribution has been from burning
of coal which appears to be fossilized plant material. A very small
fractional change of insolation would swamp the contribution from
anthropogenic sources. Note that we were crying polar disaster for
several years starting in 1979 because of several years of very cold and
extended winter and snows.
FK

I'd have no problems with 10% AGW, and possibly even accepting as
great as 25% AGW, with the remainder and vast bulk of GW contributed
as to our moon, sun and a few minor cosmic considerations. In either
case, we are not equipped for as little as a one degree shift in
average temperature per decade, and many plants are equally unable to
adjust in such a short span of time.

What's needed is full access to public funded science, with few if any
exceptions. We simply can't have our federal executive office in
charge of excluding evidence or involved with any kind of infowar
diversion tactics in order to benefit politically selective special
interest groups.

Dirty or clean, we need a whole lot more affordable and reliable
energy that's home grown, so to speak, and there certainly are viable
alternatives. Federal mandates, public matching funds and if need be
nationalizing are essential options if this nation is to survive as
intended.

~ BG
.