Re: Help shed light on Exxon's dirty games

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:21:37 +1000, "Brian Bosley"
<bosbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Tim Keating" <NotForJunkEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>message news:200ad15amholfntdco7c5sjk7mihlmmmrt@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:49:25 +1000, "Brian Bosley"
>> <bosbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>" On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:16:46 +1000, "Brian Bosley"
>>>> <bosbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Katelyn" <ksabochik@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1121183132.538506.311240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The U.S. is "addicted" to oil --
>>>>>>
>>>>>Western economies are vitally dependant on it. Nothing new.
>>>>>At
>>>>>this time there is no alternative to this source of energy,
>>>>>that
>>>>>doesn't also pollute, and/or impact adversely on the
>>>>>environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and gas prices are at record highs due to the increased
>>>>>>demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Thats not the only, or primary reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a result, global warming pollution is raising
>>>>>> temperatures and sea levels around the world and melting
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> polar ice
>>>>>> caps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Thats one theory. Unfortunately, there exists substantial
>>>>>data
>>>>>that directly contradicts this supposition. Antarctica for
>>>>>example has experience measurable temperature drops in the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
remember this statement...

>>>>>last
>>>>>20 years or so, and the sea ice season has increased by 21
>>>>>days
>>>>>since 1979.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm..
>>>> So your claiming the breakup up of the major antarctic
>>>> ice
>>>> shelfs
>>>> resulting in a lengthen sea ice season indicates global
>>>> cooling????
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so..
>>>>
>>>I'm claiming nothing. I am merely pointing out that
>>>contradictory evidence exists to the global warming theory and
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> That's a claim...
>> I don't see any links pointing to the evidence supporting
>> your
>> claim..
>>
> Source:- United States Historical Climatology Network. City
>data sets, many showing dropping temps.

I doubt that you analysed the data sets with any precision.
Therefore your original statements about dropping temps in
antarctic used another source.. Cite the link..

Likewise your attempt to divert the subject matter to another data
set is also disingenuous.

>>
>>>mans part in it.
>>>I certainly didn't mention anything about global cooling. You
>>
>> If you're not warming.. then you're likely to be cooling..
>> Large perfectly stable equilibriums are a rarity..
>>
>This is exactly the point. Some areas are warming (usually urban
>heat islands) while others are cooling. (neither by any great
>degree)
>It's the cooling aspect that is being overlooked or ignored in
>the global warming theory.
>>
>>>seem to be confused over the term Sea Ice. Sea ice is formed
>>>when the sea freezes and has nothing directly to do with ice
>>>shelves or glaciers. An increased season of 21 days, and
>>>indications that this is accelerating, contradicts a warming
>>>scenario.
>>>There is evidence of glacial melt but only on the Antarctia
>>>penninsula which is outside the Antarctic circle. Radar
>>>measurements have shown that ice accumulations are increasing
>>>(25
>>>gigatons/year) and temperatures in the interior have dropped by
>>>almost 2 degrees C in the last 20 years. More evidence that
>>>the
>>>Emperor could possibly be naked.
>>
>> Again any cites to support your claim of evidence??
>>
>"Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over
>the last 20 years"
>Source:- J C Cosmo 2000 "Journal of Climate" 13 1674-96
>
>"Side looking radar measurements show West Antarctic is
>increasing at 2.8 Gigatons/year, reversing the melting trendof
>the last 6000 years"
>Source:- I Joughin and S Tulaczyk 2002 "Science" 295 476-80
>
>"Antarctic penninsula has warmed several degrees while interior
>has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has
>increased"
>Source:- D W Thompson and S Soloman 2002 "Science" 296 895-99
>
>"Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979"
>Source:- J Liu and J A Curry 2004 "Geophysical Research Letters"
>31
>
>"The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice
>season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979"
>Source:- C L Parkinson 2002 "Annals of Glaciology" 34 435-40
>>
>> Here's one that says your claim (sea ice growing) is a red
>> herring.
>> http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/IceSheet_SeaLevel/ice_shelf_loss.html
>>
>Nowhere on that link is sea ice mentioned, and nowhere in my post
>did I say that sea ice was growing.
>You are still confusing shelf ice with sea ice.

Ahem.. Ice shelf... (floats on ????)
Ice shelf breaks off.. (and goes where???, and becomes what???)

Your claim is a red herring.

>>
><snip>
>>
>> As for the claim of antarctic cooling...
>>
>> http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml
>>
>> " Weather observations in Antarctica have been recorded only
>> for the
>> last 150 years. Detailed climatic monitoring began in the late
>> 1950's.
>> Most Antarctic stations today are equipped with sophisticated
>> weather
>> monitoring technology and are manned by professional
>> meteorologists
>> who perform observations around the clock. "
>>
>> I.E. Antarctic sample size is insufficient.. .
>>
>That is really priceless. Only 150 years of records is too small
>a sample???? Thats about the same period for which we have
>temps of everywhere else, but that doesn't deter the alarmists in
>their dire warnings about global warming. We had less than 10
>years of data on a newly discoverd phenomenon (ozone hole) before
>alarmists were making up their lists of "to ban" materials.

Yup.. sampling one or two spots in antarctic does not cut it when one
measuring temps for an entire Continent.

>>
>> Additionally.. If the gulf stream is slowing down as reported
>> ..
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602579,00.html
>>
>> Then it's likely that all ocean currents are slowing...
>> (similar
>> mechanisms).
>>
>> If those heat conveyers are no longer efficiently carrying
>> as much
>> thermal energy to the polar regions. Then the resulting in the
>> rapid
>> rise of ocean temps in the tropics would be a natural
>> consequence.
>> And spawning numerous cyclones, (heat engines), as nature deals
>> with
>> the high concentration of thermal energy.
>>
>Oh dear, another doomsday theory. I'm not going to get into this
>one until I see some hard figures.
>>
>>>> As for temps.. got any cites..
>>>> Do they make any difference?
>>>>
>>>Do you have to ask? It's a tad difficult to hold that the
>>>planet
>>>is warming globally, (that is universally) when 180 years of
>>>data
>>>for dozens of cities and towns show no increase in temperature,
>>>or even a drop, over that period.
>>
>> Yes,, you make claims.. but no hard data..
>>
>See above for sources.
>>
>> Loss of the ice shelfs blows your sea ice claim out of the
>> water.
>>
>On the contrary. See above for sources
>>> >
>>>>>Against the background of the "global warming" theory, it is
>>>>>also
>>>>>interesting to compare the temperature charts of New York
>>>>>City,
>>>>>West Point and Albany from 1826 to 2000, (United States
>>>>>Historical Cliamatology Network) Three cities only 140 miles
>>>>>apart.
>>>>
>>>> As for global warming.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile we're setting a new record of five (maybe six)
>>>> cyclones
>>>> in just the first two months of hurricanes season. At least
>>>> two of
>>>> those cyclones reaching an unheard of major hurricane status.
>>>>
>>>Records are made to be broken. Over the last 100 years, there
>>>has been no increase in hurricane strikes on the US, and over
>>>the
>>>last 5 decades there has been a downward trend in the numbers.
>>>Even the IPCC has stated that
>>> "Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather
>>>events, or climate variability has increased in a global sense,
>>>throughout the twentieth century"
>>
>> Cites please..
>> How long ago did they make that statement?
>>
>Initially in "Climate Change 1995" and again in their 2001 report

Ahem.. old news/old data.. back when they were in denial mode..

>Executive Summary p2
>>
>> Using what data to support their claim?

Update to recent events.

In case you haven't heard.. All the G8 leaders, (including head
in sand Bush), now agrees that global warming is a major problem.

>>
>Simple enough to colate the published data and draw a graph
>surely? The IPCC does not regard this as a claim, but as a fact,
>based on the historical data available to them.

Again.. old incorrect/imprecise data...
We now have Satellites which can monitor temps globally.
(Millions of temp data points simultaneously.)
They show an alarming trend.. See NASA link below..

>>
> >>>
>>>> Here are some verifiable cites for global warming.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/teia-sce042505.php
>>>> "Scientists confirm Earth's energy is out of balance"
>>>>
>>>> "Using satellites, data from buoys and computer models to
>>>> study
>>>> the
>>>> Earth's oceans, scientists have concluded that more energy is
>>>> being
>>>> absorbed from the Sun than is emitted back to space, throwing
>>>> the
>>>> Earth's energy "out of balance" and warming the planet."
>>>>
>>>> "The current imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared
>>>> (W/m2)"
>>>> ref:
>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The evidence is all around you, staring you right in your
>>>> face.
>>>> Only the insane would claim the evidence doesn't exist..
>>>>
>>>Evidence that the Emperor might be naked? You are absolutely
>>>correct. I could not agree more.
>>
>> Again, you've supplied no verifiable evidence..


.