Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
From: Eric Swanson (swanson_at_notspam.net)
Date: 01/30/05
- Next message: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Previous message: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- In reply to: The Ancient One: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Fred J. McCall: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:03:53 +0000 (UTC)
In article <10vq29hrfhsfsb0@corp.supernews.com>, onlytheone@thetopknows.com says...
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@notspam.net> wrote
>> onlytheone@thetopknows.com says...
>>>An Interesting link if you wish to read it.
>>>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
>>>It is always better to do nothing, than to do the wrong thing in haste and
>>>fear.
>>
>> Sorry, that link references lots of old denialist disinformatiion.
>> For example, the so-called satellite temerpature data referenced is from
>> 1997, when there was only one analysis of the MSU data and it indicated a
>> global cooling trend. Newer results by Spencer and Christy and other workers
>> now show a warming trend, with S & C's results being the least of the results.
>> I have shown that these trends from the MSU may reflect the impact of
>> Pinatubo's large sulfate cloud, which lingered in the trend calculation
>> for a number of years because they were at the end of the time series.
>>
>> You write about volcanos, but where is the reference to the 1259 eruption,
>> or the very big 1453 blast (Kuwae) which clearly shows up in the results
>> of both Mann, et all and also in McKintyre & McKitrick's latest?
>>
>> Also, paleoclimate data from the tropics seems to indicate that the
>> climate at those latitudes during the Ice Ages was not much colder than
>> todays, which is at odds with the statements in your reference.
>>
>
>Now you are the denialist. You accept only the facts that support your
>opinion and discount all that don't. Your choice, I choose not to believe
>the doomsayers who cannot prove what they preach. There is far to much
>evidence supporting the current warming as primarily natural to discount it
>as blithely as you do, so we'll just have to vote for who we agree with and
>let the voters decide. I have no desire to continue an argument with those
>who will not listen to the voices of logic and reason. Goodluck with your
>Holy Crusade to save us from ourselves.
Oh? Your URL reference was both out of data and completely biased.
Most of the claims posted there have been refuted over and over again on the
forum that I post to, sci.environment. Since this was cross-posted to your
favorite hangout, you may not be aware of this. That the warming expected from
anthropogenic changes is just now exceeding natural variability is well known.
Your appeal to "logic and reason" is thus very empty. For example, when you
use the phrase "primarily natural" you ignore the science that finds the
opposite to be the case.
Go ahead, slink back to your favorite news group and continue to be ignorant!
-- Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-) --------------------------------------------------------------
- Next message: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Previous message: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- In reply to: The Ancient One: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Fred J. McCall: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
