|
|
Post by dazbt on Jul 22, 2008 12:49:44 GMT -5
I'm not really sure how to start asking the questions that I would like answering relating to the causes of this so called Global Warming Crisis, the imminent threat that we are 'reliably' informed is about to consume us all, or some of us at least. I suppose that an explanation of the words 'reliable information' might be a good opener, who and what should we believe? I'm pretty sure that there has been climatic changes at least here in the UK over a good number of decades now, fairly massive changes in so much as where I have always lived, we no longer have frequent winter snowfalls two feet or more deep, we certainly had those all through the 1950s, lessening in frequency in the 1960s until the last few years when we consider ourselves 'snowed in' should an inch or so fall and settle for more than a couple of hours, even briefly over the so called winter months. Even as cynical as I am, I have to agree that the climate in the UK at least, is definitely milder and more equable now, so it's fairly easy for me to accept that we are experiencing some form of global warming, even though I have tried to identify rising sea levels without any positive results, paddling in the sea at Bridlington the water still only comes up to my ankles, just the same as it did fifty odd years ago. But what is the real cause of this warming, is it part of a natural cyclic evolvment, is it as a direct result of China burning coal twice as fast as they can produce it, loss of the Amazonian Forest, gas guzzling aeroplanes and billions of school kids being driven to school in 4x4 Chelsea Tractors? It seems to me that, if the Western world's media are to be believed, it is almost all down to China in its irresponsible, uncaring, careless attitude to coal burning in its race to become the Industrial Leaders of the World, or maybe even just World Leaders in everything, Oh dear, 'Reds on the Top Bunk' this time.
If anybody is really to blame, who is it, is it any one particular country, individual tribe, group, religious following or even an individual? ................... I've got a thought or two, anyone else care to comment?
I have a half a thought that I'll be sorry for setting this topic off.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 22, 2008 13:04:35 GMT -5
Seems someone has been "fudging the figures" Daz. No doubt we are in one of those trends where certain parts of the world are having one of those normal warming OR cooling trends that have occured throughout earths history. From what I'm reading, nearly every planet in our solar system is going through an warming trend. What amazes me though, the "experts" and I may add these experts are highly paid government scientists who have a good reason to come up with all this bullcrap, have different theories as to each planets rise in temperature! My own theory is old Sol is throwing a paddy, he's late starting his periods, err not that one that women have, but the sunspot cycle. It's overdue by nearly two years. Do a google on Steven McIntyre the Canadian who informed NASA their figures were all wrong on average world temperatures. Last August NASA amended the figures to Steves corrected figures which actually show a cooling trend on earth. I wonder why the mainstream media didn't pick up on all this???  Some smaller newspapers reported Steve's information last year, but what happened to The New York Times etc?? |
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Jul 27, 2008 17:06:44 GMT -5
I'm not really sure how to start asking the questions that I would like answering relating to the causes of this so called Global Warming Crisis, the imminent threat that we are 'reliably' informed is about to consume us all, or some of us at least. I suppose that an explanation of the words 'reliable information' might be a good opener, who and what should we believe? I'm pretty sure that there has been climatic changes at least here in the UK over a good number of decades now, fairly massive changes in so much as where I have always lived, we no longer have frequent winter snowfalls two feet or more deep, we certainly had those all through the 1950s, lessening in frequency in the 1960s until the last few years when we consider ourselves 'snowed in' should an inch or so fall and settle for more than a couple of hours, even briefly over the so called winter months. Even as cynical as I am, I have to agree that the climate in the UK at least, is definitely milder and more equable now, so it's fairly easy for me to accept that we are experiencing some form of global warming, even though I have tried to identify rising sea levels without any positive results, paddling in the sea at Bridlington the water still only comes up to my ankles, just the same as it did fifty odd years ago. But what is the real cause of this warming, is it part of a natural cyclic evolvment, is it as a direct result of China burning coal twice as fast as they can produce it, loss of the Amazonian Forest, gas guzzling aeroplanes and billions of school kids being driven to school in 4x4 Chelsea Tractors? It seems to me that, if the Western world's media are to be believed, it is almost all down to China in its irresponsible, uncaring, careless attitude to coal burning in its race to become the Industrial Leaders of the World, or maybe even just World Leaders in everything, Oh dear, 'Reds on the Top Bunk' this time. If anybody is really to blame, who is it, is it any one particular country, individual tribe, group, religious following or even an individual? ................... I've got a thought or two, anyone else care to comment? I have a half a thought that I'll be sorry for setting this topic off. Well that topic created a lot more discussion than I thought it would,  maybe if I tried a different approach ............ If, we were discussing only carbon pollution created by coal burning, then in my 'guestimation' it isn't the poor Chinese individual that the world's media seem to want us to believe is the causation factor, but, if numbers were crunched truthfully and figures examined fairly, it is much more likely to be us, the finger pointers, who should really be held to account as individuals. There is little doubt that China in total burns the greatest proportion of The World’s Coal per country and is therefore likely to be the highest producer of coal produced carbon dioxide, but who really benefits most from all that coal burning, not the poor Chinese individual who would probably consider himself lucky to have electric lighting in his home let alone a fridge or a television set to run on coal fired power station produced electricity, the chances are that some of that Chinese coal produced power goes into the production of fridges, televisions, kid’s toys and a trillion other ‘excesses’ for the benefit of us, the finger pointers of the Western World. “You make it for us, make it cheap, make it in any nasty way you choose, but make it cheaply, we will blame you for our Carbon Footprint later, just keep it coming at the right price”. All that said, I would not even attempt to put a value to how much Chinese coal produced Carbon Dioxide pollution I (we) should be accountable for in having bought cheaply produced Chinese goods, what I am prepared to risk is, making a very rough calculation of what should be the individual (personal) accountability of The World’s Coal produced Carbon Dioxide, that is to say relative tonnages of coal produced by any one country in consideration of that country’s individual population, as a factor in tonnages of production, export and internal usage; Coal Production; India roughly a quarter that of China United States of America approximately twice that of China and eight times that of India. Australia five times that of The USA, ten times that of China and of course forty times that of India. Tons of Coal Per head of population; Country ........ produced.... exported .... used (includes imported) INDIA............. 00.43........ 00.001........ 00.47 CHINA............ 01.97........ none at present........ 02.01 USA............... 03.81........ 00.16 ........ 03.76 AUSTRALIA..... 19.65........ 13.66.......... 05.99 (these figures are averaged from multiple Internet sources and based on approximate (alleged) 2006 statistics, totally accurate or not, I have little doubt that these figures give at least a fair representation of the world figures relating to today’s facts) And we insist that China is to blame for World Coal Carbon Dioxide Pollution, Global Warming and everything else detrimental to the Western World other than the supply of cheap manufactured goods. Probably more of a rant than logic, but I do believe that China is being given an unfair press to say the least, but then again I'm nearly always wrong, tell me. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 28, 2008 6:45:35 GMT -5
Well the only thing I spot thats wrong Daz is no mention of the other planets in our solar system that are also going through a "global warming" phase. Who's polluting them with carbon emissions?
No I don't buy "man made global warming" anymore than I believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. ;D ;D
The figures clearly show earth has been going through a cooling trend the last couple of years, and "real scientific" data shows it's all been another one of earths cycles. In fact this site, like all coal mining sites, wouldn't exist had it not been for the fact earth had a long warm spell over 350 - 450 million years back. ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Jul 28, 2008 12:05:25 GMT -5
Well the only thing I spot thats wrong Daz is no mention of the other planets in our solar system that are also going through a "global warming" phase. Who's polluting them with carbon emissions? No I don't buy "man made global warming" anymore than I believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. ;D ;D The figures clearly show earth has been going through a cooling trend the last couple of years, and "real scientific" data shows it's all been another one of earths cycles. In fact this site, like all coal mining sites, wouldn't exist had it not been for the fact earth had a long warm spell over 350 - 450 million years back. ;D ;D Well that's the question of Global Warming resolved then, thank goodness. I have to admit that I was getting a little bit concerned about it all, even considered sending my Samsung Tele. back as a token protest at one point. |
|
limey
Shotfirer.
Posts: 75
|
Post by limey on Jul 28, 2008 13:13:42 GMT -5
Actually, the scientific data does show a warming trend. Yes, the earth has been through these trends in the past, but the BIG difference this time is the rate at which the warming is taking place. The earth has increased in temp gradually over the last 50 years - and many claim this is a "normal" trend - but the scientists point out that in prior heating cycles, the temp has increased the same amount over 5,000 or more years!
Using your ankles at Bridlington is hardly a scientific measure - did you go in the water to exactly the same location, was the tide at exactly the same point, did you measure the sand height at the point of immersion, etc.
It is already known that winters, especially in western Europe, are markedly warmer. In the UK they have noticed a transition in flora and fauna that would normally take thousands of years to occur happening in as little as twenty years.
Sure, you can chose to ignore this if you wish - anything we do will certainly not have any significant affect in our lifetime, but to claim that our mining and polluting efforts over the past 1,000 years have not had an effect on the earth is a little like sticking your head in the sand. Have you not noticed how much cleaner the air is in large cities since the introduction of "smokeless" fuels and smog controls on automobiles? Imagine what the cities would be like now without those controls - would we be able to breathe? Doing nothing simply because it doesn't directly affect you is both selfish, and short-sighted. Reducing our dependance on fossil fuels and reducing pollutants is a good idea no matter what your opinion on global warming is. Or would you rather your great-granchildren face a world with no oil, no coal and no electricity in order to sustain your habits?
As to scientific facts - make sure you have FACTS! They should be peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. I think if you check, you will find the concensus in those locations points to global warming being fact, not fiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 28, 2008 19:32:19 GMT -5
One big problem with your argument Eric, the man made global warming crowd didn't adhere to your principles of doing years of research, then publishing papers, they merely came to an unjust conclusion and went "straight to press" with what was really an "unfounded rumour" I didn't say I didn't believe in climate change, I merely do not believe we are responsible anymore than if we all peed in the ocean it would raise it to flood levels. Climate change is a natural Phenomena powered by the sun like all weather is. Being involved with amateur radio, we rely on solar research, and over the last few years the sun has been behaving rather oddly. We should be in the first year of the new solar cycle, BUT, as yet, it appears we are still in the decline of the last cycle. Last year NASA corrected their extremely faulty data on their wesite after being caught falsifying temperature data. They now admit the warmest years in the 20th century were during the 1930's and 40's. Which "scuppers" all the crap going around. do a google of Steven McIntyre the Canadian who brought the false data to NASA'a attention. He is a remarkable man who spent a long time looking at NASA'a data on global warming and found error in their figures. Funny thing though Eric, none of his research into NASA'a false claims has hit the mainstream media, sure some backwoods newspapers have published his findings and NASA's corrections last August, YEP LAST AUGUST!!!!! I wonder why there is a coverup??? Could egg on face be the reason/s?  You betcha, they have been caught out with their pants around their ankles and are trying to save face. There is also one other thing H.A.A.R.P and the Chinese equivalent, based on Nikola Tesla's research on weather altering. IS it possible to alter weather by charging the upper atmosphere with a few million watts of RF energy??? Any country who can do that can rule a planet! I most certainly don't believe our government on their explanations regarding HAARP. Most of what HAARP is "supposed" to be doing has been carried out by the US air force for years with a lot less power and tons of data available to every To, Dick and Harry around the planet. Getting back on topic, there are more credible NONE government scientists who oppose the BS surrounding "man made global warming" It seems to me that highly paid government scientists are really looking after their own salaries with great fat packages rather than telling the truth. |
|
limey
Shotfirer.
Posts: 75
|
Post by limey on Jul 29, 2008 8:28:12 GMT -5
"One big problem with your argument Eric, the man made global warming crowd didn't adhere to your principles of doing years of research, then publishing papers, they merely came to an unjust conclusion and went "straight to press" with what was really an "unfounded rumour"
Check a few of these and tell me where the "unfounded rumour" is:
Royer DL, Berner RA, Park J (2007). "Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years". Nature 446 (7135): 530–2. doi:10.1038/nature05699.
Peter Bruckschen, Susanne Oesmanna and Ján Veizer (1999-09-30). "Isotope stratigraphy of the European Carboniferous: proxy signals for ocean chemistry, climate and tectonics". Chemical Geology 161 (1-3): 127. doi:10.1016/S0009-2541(99)00084-4.
Charlson, R. J.; S. E. SCHWARTZ, J. M. HALES, R. D. CESS, J. A. COAKLEY JR., J. E. HANSEN, and D. J. HOFMANN (1992-01-24). "Climate Forcing by Anthropogenic Aerosols". Science 255 (5043): 423–430. doi:10.1126/science.255.5043.423. PMID 17842894.
Ruddiman, William (2005-12-05). "Debate over the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis". RealClimate.
Ahlenius, Hugo (June 2007). "Climate feedbacks". United Nations Environment Programme/GRID-Arendal.
Baxter, JM & Buckley PJ and Wallace CJ, eds. (2008), Marine Climate Change Impacts Annual Report Card 2007–2008, Lowestoft: Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership.
Petit, J. R.; J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N. I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V. M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V. Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. PÉpin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman and M. Stievenard (1999-06-03). "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429–436. doi:10.1038/20859.
Langdon, PG; Barber KE, Lomas-Clarke SH (August 2004). "Reconstructing climate and environmental change in northern England through chironomid and pollen analyses: evidence from Talkin Tarn, Cumbria". Journal of Paleolimnology 32 (2): 197–213. doi:10.1023/B:JOPL.0000029433.85764.a5.
Birks, HH (March 2003). "The importance of plant macrofossils in the reconstruction of Lateglacial vegetation and climate: examples from Scotland, western Norway, and Minnesota, USA". Quarternary Science Reviews 22 (5-7): 453–473. doi:10.1016/S0277-3791(02)00248-2.
Coope, G.R.; Lemdahl, G.; Lowe, J.J.; Walkling, A. (1999-05-04). "Temperature gradients in northern Europe during the last glacial--Holocene transition(14--9 14 C kyr BP) interpreted from coleopteran assemblages". Journal of Quaternary Science 13 (5): 419–433. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1417(1998090)13:5<419::AID-JQS410>3.0.CO;2-D.
Fox, R.; Warren, M.S., Asher, J., Brereton, T.M. and Roy (2007). "The state of Britain’s butterflies 2007". Butterfly Conservation and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wareham, Dorset.
McGuirk, Rod; Bernard Lagan, Joseph Kerr (2007-01-30). "Australian Drought".
Welbergen, J. A.; Klose, S. M., Markus, N. & Eby, P. (2008-02-22). "Climate change and the effects of temperature extremes on Australian flying-foxes". Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275 (1633): 419–425. Royal Society Publishing. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1385.
I don't see many "highly paid government scientists are really looking after their own salaries with great fat packages" in there! Also note that these papers date back to 1992.
"Funny thing though Eric, none of his research into NASA'a false claims has hit the mainstream media, sure some backwoods newspapers have published his findings and NASA's corrections last August, YEP LAST AUGUST!!!!! I wonder why there is a coverup???"
There is no coverup - the FACT is that even the changes to the NASA data make no difference:
"It made no perceptible difference to the global mean anomaly, nor to the rankings of the globally warmest years."
It simply is NOT news!
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 29, 2008 9:20:12 GMT -5
I did say I don't accept the MAN MADE global warming crap Eric Most of your papers your list are just global warming or related papers. ;D
BUT, I bet I could find equal if not more that deal with the opposite, from many notable scientists who claim GW is a load of codswallop.
If you google John Laws, you'd find an interview with a prominent Australian Scientist who totally disclaims GW and provides enough documented data to back his claims up.
BUT, the first scientist who came up with GW publically did so without any published data whatsoever and has been admonished by his collegues ever since.
Like I stated, I don't believe in MAN MADE global warming, I do accept that the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling during it's normal life cycles.
There's been so many lies floated around to boost profits of huge corporations, Monsanto comes to mind as one over the refrigerant they owned the patent on and was coming to an end. It was proven freon was no more dangerous than any other man made gas and there was no real scientific data to prove it harmless to the atmosphere, other than Monsanto's claims!
How on earth can we take any credible notice of companies like Monsanto that have a profit agenda. Even big tobacco company CEO's lied through their teeth to protect their profits during the Senate inquiry inot cancer and tobacco.
It's not generally known my many folk, but freon is still manufactured in Mexico and China, probably India too if the truth came out!
We have extremely important issues being overlooked around us, food production and big corporations! This is a far more important issue we should be worrying about.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 29, 2008 10:31:38 GMT -5
I can come up with hundreds of these counter hypothisis. Probably outnumbering the for crowd Eric. I've seen so many theory's come and go and change several times a year in the electrical and electronic sciences it gave me a headache even trying to take it in.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It?
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 14, 2007 - 13:23 ET
*
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 29, 2008 10:34:15 GMT -5
Here's another by a couple of chemists at a university.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)
Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.
The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.
Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.
Careful Tests
The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.
Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.
The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.
Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.
So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.
But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.
Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.
Lush Environment
What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.
Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 29, 2008 10:36:56 GMT -5
Anyway, I think it's futile to keep this argument going, you believe and I don't, you can produce a wad of papers for, so can I against. IMHO, the politicians jumped in without thinking and now they know they have to protect their reputations, so have to back the myth up to the hilt. But at our expense!
Better close this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazbt on Jul 29, 2008 15:33:06 GMT -5
Wow ............. obviously there's plenty of reading on both sides of the argument, not sure I've got the time really. What does seem to be agreed upon is the fact that there is a present increasing warming of the planet even though there is global disagreement as to the reason why. Academics, politicians, industrialists, media representitives all perhaps disagreeing with each other with differing reason as to why it is happening, as well as what will be the ultimate result, and what if anything, can be done if not to offset the effect, then at least as to how we should prepare for likely (or inevitable) changes.
I wouldn't pretend to be smart enough to know either way if 'Global Warming' is affected by our own industrial pollution or not, but one thing that I do know for definite is that living within the the area of intense industrial pollution isn't good for any living thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 29, 2008 15:52:45 GMT -5
Dr, S.Fred Singer disagrees with most of the so called warming theories, sure he says, there's proof we can alter micro climates, like cities, but not on a world wide scale. He puts some interesting points forward using satellite data and scoffing at the media's attempt at brainwashing the public.
Here's a short write up on Fred Singers credentials, quite impressive to say the least!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997).
|
|
Some smaller newspapers reported Steve's information last year, but what happened to The New York Times etc??
You betcha, they have been caught out with their pants around their ankles and are trying to save face.