🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:41:12 -0500, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
wrote:

>On 10 Oct 2004 17:39:19 -0500, Wm James
><wrjames.remove@spamreaper.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd never ask anyone to take what I say on faith. Check it, recheck
>>it, and check it again.  But what I say doesn't even matter. What
>>matters is the totally blank list of evidence to support the global
>>warming scam. I'm not claiming evidence to the contrary, the satellite
>>data shows a slight cooling but too insignificant to be relevant.  My
>>point is hat the party making the extraordinary claim has to show the
>>evidence. 
>
>http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
>
>Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere
>The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon 
>dioxide, have increased since pre-industrial times from 
>280 part per million (ppm) to 360 ppm, a 30% increase. 
>Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are 
>the highest in 160,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-
>product of the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline 
>in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating 
>electricity.

Irrelevant. No one, certianly not me, has suggested that CO2 hasn't
increased.  That has squat to do with earth's temperature. There is
still no evidence of global warming.  If you had it, you'd post it.

>Methane Also Increasing
>Levels of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse 
>gas, have risen 145% in the last 100 years.   Methane is 
>derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine 
>flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production.  

Irrelevant.

>More Frequent Extreme Weather
>The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record 
>since the mid-1800's; 1998 being the warmest year. 
>According to Thomas Karl, director of the National 
>Climatic Data Center (NOAA), the current pace of 
>temperature rise is "consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 
>degrees Fahrenheit per century." By comparison, the
> world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since 
>the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years 
>ago.

Statistical data mining.  Pseudoscience.  One could just as easily
take a couple of cool years and make the exact same claim in the
oposite direction regarding "the current pace of temperature drop". To
suggest it's warmed since the ice age is silly!  No kidding, Tom? It's
warmer than when it was colder?  Seriously?"

>Disappearing Glaciers  Ice is melting all over the planet. 
>Glaciers are melting on six continents. 

Testomonials are not evidence. You can always find a melting glacier
as they are all melting every season. 

>If present warming trends continue, all glaciers in Glacier 
>National Park could be gone by 2030.  The park's 
>Grinnell Glacier is already 90% gone.

I've heard that claim too. I've heard all sorts of doomsday claims
without evidence.  That's one of them. AND it's a testimonial even if
true.  No one location can give a global reading.

>Because of global warming, the glaciers of the Ruwenzori 
>range in Uganda are in massive retreat. 

And what's unusual about that? 

>The Bering Glacier, North America's largest glacier, has 
>lost 7 miles of its length, while losing 20-25% of parts of 
>the glacier. 

So?  Testimonials are not evidence.  If you want evidence you need a
LONG TERM measument of a LARGE number of RANDOM areas.  You can always
pick a warm period at one place and go out and say hey, it's warmer...
THE SKY IS FALLING!"  That doesn't make it real.

>Ice cores taken from the Dunde Ice Cap in the Qilian 
>Mountains on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-
>Tibetan Plateau indicate that the years since 1938 have
> been the warmest in the last 12,000 years. 

Really?  They were taking global measurments and dropping data packets
into the ice all those years?

>The melting is accelerating. The Lewis Glacier on Mt. 
>Kenya (In Kenya) has lost 40% of its mass during the 
>period 1963-1987 or at a much faster clip than during 
>1899-1963. 

So what?  It's ONE PLACE.   You are picking selected examples which
fit your conclusion.  That's called data mining.  It's a tool for
scams, but it's NOT science.

>The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."

"The potential for floods and droughts is decreasing."

See the proof!  I put it in quotes!  Wow!  That makes it official,
doesn't it?  :)

>....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases
>enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the 
>risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense 
>droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, 
>even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. 
>Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread 
>across the United States. Examples include the 
>intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, 
>Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive 
>flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 
>even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme 
>flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in 
>California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 
>and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of 
>the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
>(NOAA). 

And who signs his checks?  Whoever it is should stop and put a
scientist into that position instead of a charlitan.  If he had a
clue, he'd know what the greenhouse gasses are, and he wouldn't expect
people to fall for such a goofy unscientific claim using a couple
perfectly normal and regular events to make a case for pseudoscience
BS.

>In southern Peru the rate of melting of the Qori Kalis 
>glacier during the 8 year period 1983 to 1991 was 3 
>times the pace of the previous 20 years, 1963 to 1983. 

No kidding? What do you suppose was happening during those 8 years?
Wanna tell us what happened before and after?

>"By the time we probably know what they are doing, it 
>will be far too late to worry about it because they are 
>going to be like galloping glaciers," says Ellen Mosley 
>Thompson, climate expert at Ohio State University. 
>The Qori Kalis is receding at about two feet per day. 
>Sitting beside the glacier, one could witness the melting 
>hour by hour. 

Yeah, it's that time of year...

>In a study that appeared in the journal, Science, September 
>15, 2000, a team led by Lonnie G. Thompson, including 
>Ellen Mosley-Thompson, both of Ohio State, analyzed ice 
>cores that came from deep within a glacier more than 
>20,000 feet high in the Himalayas. The results of their 
>research showed that the past 100 years have been the 
>hottest period in 1,000 years high in the Himalayas. 
>Also their research supports other studies that 
>demonstrated a dramatic decline in water levels of 
>glacier-fed rivers,

So much for the "melting ice results in water" theory, huh?

> and that the high elevations are 
>warming much more than the global average (one 
>degree F). Mosley-Thompson says, "For these rivers 
>to continue to flow year-round, they have to be fed by 
>ice in the high mountains. The question then is where 
>will the river flow come from during the dry season?"  
>(Note: See Ohio State Press Release dated February 
>18, 2001

ROTFLMAO!
 
> Greenland's glaciers are moving more rapidly to the 
>sea, caused, perhaps, by melt water lubricating the 
>base of the glaciers. See below for another look at 
>dwindling ice mass in Greenland.

Actually, the water between the surface and the ice is usually melted
by pressure. That would indicate MORE ice, not less.

>The Tasman Glacier in New Zealand has thinned by 
>more than 100 meters in the past century. Glaciers in 
>New Zealand have shrunk about 26% between 1890 
>and 1998. 

Interesting reference point.  Where was it in 1790?

>The melting of the Gangotri Glacier in India is 
>accelerating with an average rate of retreat of 30 
>meters annually. The rate between 1935 and 1990 
>was 18 meters per year and 7 meters annually between 
>1842 and 1935. 

Interesting reference point again.  Do you happen to notice a pattern
here?  You have all these carefully selected snippets of data,each
with carefully selected reference points.  The whole collection is
meaningless.  If you want to show that something is happening, pick
ONE reference point far enough back to matter, say 200 years, and show
where all those things were every few years or so and plot a trend.
Even 200 years is really too small, however. The climate swings quite
naturally on a much larger scale than that.

>A glacier from which Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing 
>Norgay set out to conquer Mount Everest nearly 50 
>years ago has retreated three miles up the mountain 
>due to global warming. 

That's a lie.  Whether it's retreated or not, it's certianly not due
to a fantasy.

>The head of the Nepal 
>Mountaineering Association, Tashi Jangbu Sherpa, 
>says " that Hillary and Tenzing would now have to walk 
>two hours to find the edge of the glacier which was 
>close to their original base camp."  

Put in a McDonalds so they can have a break along the way.

>Portage Glacier in the Chugach National Forest, south 
>of Anchorage, is another casualty of climate change, say 
>scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. These 
>researchers found that melting glaciers are responsible 
>for at least 9 percent of the global sea-level rise over 
>the past century.

Funny how it's only rising there, isn't it?

>Melting Arctic Sea Ice
>The Arctic, with an area about the size of the United 
>States, is seeing average temperatures similar to the 
>Antarctic, almost 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 
>planet as a whole

What?  You want to redo that one?  It doesn't make any sense on
several levels.

>Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 250 million acres -- an area 
>the size of California, Maryland and Texas combined.

Yewn.... Dependingon your start and end reference points it's done
whatever you want to claim it's done but boil.

>In a N.Y Times article (Nov. 17, 1999) it was reported that 
>scientists have discovered that from 1993 through 1997 
>average Arctic sea ice thickness was six feet. This 
>represents a significant reduction in Arctic sea ice from 
>1958 through 1976 when average thickness measured 
>10 feet. 

Interesting data selection points again.  What happened between 1976
and 1999? 

>This means that in less than 30 years, there has 
>been a 40% loss of arctic sea ice.  In a Washington Post 
>article (Dec. 3, 1999) it was noted that in the Arctic,  sea 
>ice is shrinking at a rate of 14,000 square miles annually, 
>an area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined.

No, it means that it's possibly different 1999 than in 1976, or it
means measurements are taken with a different method, or it could even
mean the report is bogus as many have proven to be since the global
warming scam started. "It was reported"?  By what?  Is it a Greenpeace
claim, did they report it?  If no, then it's about as meaningful as
your lucky number from the physic hotline.

>According to a report by Norwegian scientists, the arctic 
>sea ice in about 50 years could disappear entirely each 
>summer. Researchers at the Nansen Environmental and 
>Remote Sensing Center based their predictions on satellite 
>pictures. These pictures showed that the Arctic winter 
>icescapes decreased by 6% (a Texas-size area) during 
>the last 20 years.   

A meteor the size of the moon slamming into the earth COULD cause a
very bad day too, but that's no reason to say it's happening.  And
satellite pictures?  ROTFLMAO!  It's a PREDICTION based on PICTURES???

>Melting Antarctic Sea Ice
>The Antarctic Peninsula has seen an increase in average 
>temperatures of almost 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 50 
>years. Heavy sea ice has been the norm in the Antarctic, 
>but in the 1990's sea ice disintegration has begun, notes 
>Robin Ross, a biological oceanographer with the University 
>of California at Santa Barbara. During the year 1998, the 
>Antarctic displayed a record low in winter sea ice.  

We had record low temperatures here in August.  So that proved global
cooling by your standards. 

>Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting
>In a recent study by researchers from NASA's Goddard 
>Space Flight Center shows that Greenland's ice sheet, 
>about 8% of the Earth's grounded ice (Antarctica possessing 
>91% of land ice), is losing ice mass. A NASA high-tech 
>aerial survey shows that more than 11 cubic miles of ice 
>is melting along Greenland's coasts yearly, accounting for 
>7% of the annual global sea level rise. Measurements over 
>the last century suggest that sea level has risen 9 inches, 
>enough to cause flooding in low-lying areas, when a storm 
>occurs. Sea level increase could worsen, if the present 
>trend continues, says William Krabill, lead author of the 
>NASA study.  

I suspect he meant "relative to the land THERE."  Not that it's
relevant. Such changes are far more cloesly tied to the gulf stream
that the earth's temperature as a whole.

>Tropical Diseases Spreading
>A recent study by New Zealand doctors, researchers at 
>the Wellington School of Medicine's public health 
>department said outbreaks o f dengue fever in South 
>Pacific islands are directly related to global warming.  
>Global warming is projected to significantly increase the
>range conducive to the transmission of both dengue and 
>yellow fevers.  

Couldn't have anything to do with PEOPLE TRAVELING, could it?

>http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/7725721.htm?1c
>
>2003 tied for the world's second-hottest year, according 
>to federal government data released Thursday.

Yawn.... how about you get a faith healer to cool the earth for you?

>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN226990.DTL
>
>At the annual fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union 
>in San Francisco earlier this month, a flurry of new reports 
>examining evidence of global climate change all tell the same 
>story.

ROTFLMAO!  Yeah, with that crowd it's always the same story, always a
whine for more tax dollars no matter how much they have to lie and
cheat to prove they need it to prove their preformed conclusion.....
that they willneed more tax dollars next year!

>If the trends continue unchecked, scientists say, rising sea 
>levels will drown coastlines. Droughts in some regions -- 
>and increased rainfall in others -- will alter harvests 
>drastically. And other climate disruptions will destabilize 
>regional ecologies and global economies. 

No, scientists, by definition, practice the scientific method. They
are the people still waiting for the global warming scam peddlers to
quit practicing the technique of faith healers and physics and offer
some efidence to support their claim.

>Some of these alarming phenomena may be due to the 
>natural climate variability that the planet has seen over 
>millions of years. 

True. ALL of it, in fact.  Feel free to ofer evidence to the contrary
if you ever find any.

>But most scientists agree, after years 
>of debate, that humans and their addiction to fossil fuels 
>are at least partly to blame.

Nonscience, thus non-sense.  NO scientist would make a faith based
claim as anything but a faith based claim.

>Of course, the chemical companies continue to dispute
>this.  Reports by Dow Jones are not impressive because
>they have their own agenda.

ROTFLMAO!  And the frauds who get paid tax dollars to claim the sky is
falling don't have an agenda?

William R. James