🚀 go-pugleaf

Oh boy... Here we go again... This will be a ONE TIME response, I 
don't have time for this nonsense.

On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 15:50:22, af329@james.hwcn.org (Scott Nudds) wrote:

> (Doug Bissett) wrote:
> : Mr. Lavigne (I apologize, if some other title applies), totally
> : supports the elimination of greenhouse gases (and I do mean the
> : elimination). He seems to think that mankind would be far better off
> : if we quit doing anything that creates any kind of greenhouse gasses
> : (think about it, no cars, no electricity, no heat, no airplanes, no
> : tractors in the fields, no transportation for goods, no steel, no
> : tools etc. etc.).
> 
>   Bissiet assumes tht heat, airplanes, cars, steel, tractors in the
> fields, tools, etc... etc... etc... <require> fossil fuels.  This is a
> foolish assumption.

I ASSUME that:
a) Over time, we will find other/better ways of doing this.
b) You DO have an alternative today. RIGHT??? NO?? then find one then 
talk to me.

> 
>   It is also foolish to assume that Co2 emissions must be reduced to
> zero.  We can emit roughly 4 perhaps 8 gigatonns of CO2 into the
> atmosphere without causing climate change.  Current emissions are 28
> gigatonns per year.

It is even more foolish to assume that the current emissions are 
having any effect, one way or the other WITHOUT any scientific proof. 
So far, the ONLY "proof" of global warming comes from projections 
created by computer models that cannot duplicate what has happened in 
the past, and cannot predict what will happen tomorrow, never mind 
what will happen over 5 years. We do not know what the weather was 
like more than about 200 years ago, and the sample in that period is 
so small as to be totally useless.
There is more, and more, evidence that the earth has been much warmer 
than it is today, and we know that it has been much colder. There is 
also more, and more, evidence that nature pumps many time more CO2, 
and other gasses, into the atmosphere, than man does. To the point 
where what man does is insignificant, even at 5 to 10 times what we 
are doing today. In addition, we have cut back on some of nature's 
output. We no longer let forest, and grass, fires burn uncontrolled.

> 
>   Lavigne is approximately correct however, CO2 emissions must
> ultimately be reduced to near zero.  Consider McCarthy's "paradise", of
> a world filled with 15 billion people using energy at current U.S.
> levels. The U.S. produces roughly 1/4 of the worlds CO2 emissions and
> has a population that is roughly 1/20th the world population.  The
> current population consuming energy at U.S. rates would produce CO2 at 5
> times the current rate and a population of 15 billion at 15 times the
> current rate or 420 gigatonns per year.
> 
>   Ultimately then we must either avoid creating Mccarthy's "paradise", or
> reduce carbon emissions to 1-2% of their existing levels on a per capita
> asis.

Basing social planning on fiction is not really a smart idea.

> 
> 
> (Doug Bissett) wrote:
> : He wishes to do this WITHOUT any proof that greenhouse gasses
> : are, in fact, causing global warming, and with nothing but flawed
> : theory to support the assumption that global warming is even a
> : possibility.
> 
>   The scientific consensus opinion - which is based on direct
> observation of warming - is not only that global warming is real, it is
> serious enough to warrant a change in our consumptive habits.

There is NO scientific consensus...

Various speakers at a Fraser Institute conference warned that Canada 
is falling prey to the environmental hoax of the century.

Marlo Lewis Jr., of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington
D.C., condemned global warming as "a power grab based on deception and
fear".

Sallie Baliunas, senior staff physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian 
Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge Massachusetts, rejected the 
assertion that fossil fuels are altering the climate. Stating: "The 
earth has warmed a mere half a degree centigrade since 1880, and most 
of that rise occured BEFORE 1940, BEFORE the largest increase in 
fossil fuel emissions". She also predicted that at the present rate of
increase on carbon dioxide emissions, warming in the next century 
"will be less than a few tenths of a degree centigrade".

One of the more disturbing speeches was by John Christy, professor of 
atmosphere science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Mr 
Christy traced the origin of global warming misinformation to research
assembled in 1995. He explained that the 2500 scientists (including 
himself) who made up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) triggered the worldwide quest for emission reductions., And he 
blamed the campaign on a misinterpretation of data by the people 
charged with summarizing the scientists' work for public consumption. 
"Nothing we said in our original text would cause anyone to assume the
earth is warming", he declared. He also stated: "Our observational 
findings were omitted in the [IPPC] summary" and that a warning that 
"computer models are fundamentally flawed" was left out of the 
summary.

Some speakers even argued that global warming would, in fact, be good 
for the planet.

A U.S. survey of 36 of the 48 officially designated state and regional
climatologists showed 90% believe global temperature variations "are 
likely to be naturally occurring and cyclical over long periods of 
time."

> 
> 
>  Year  Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42) (1987 = 15.32)
> 
>  1867  ....*
>  1887  .......*
>  1897  ..........................*
>  1907  ...........*
>  1917  ............*
>  1927  ...............................*
>  1937  .......................................*
>  1947  .......................................*
>  1957  ......................................*
>  1967  ................................*
>  1977  .........................................*
>  1987  .................................................*
>  1997  .........................................................*
>  1997  - Hottest year on record?
> 
>  Error approx. 0.07 C' in any year

And EXACTLY where were these observations taken? How many samples? 
We had NO WAY of collecting any meaningful data, until quite recently,
when satellite measuring systems were put in place. So far, the data 
has showed little, or no change in global temperatures, and the time 
frame is about 500 years short of meaning anything.

> 
> 
> (Doug Bissett) wrote:
> : Yes... The price of motor fuel will jump by another 35 cents a litre
> : (or more), and yes it will benefit the government (except they don't
> : seem to realize that this will pretty much kill the Canadian economy,
> : causing much unemployment), which is why they are supporting this 
> : nonsense.
> 
>   Cool.  Perhaps you will consume less of it.
> 
> ---
> "A human being is part of the whole, called by us the universe.  A part
> limited in time and space.  He experiences himself, his thoughts and
> feelings, as some thing separate from the rest, a kind of optical
> delusion o his consciousness.  This delusion is a kind o prison for us,
> restricting us to our personal desires nd to affection for a few persons
> nearest us.
> 
> Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
> circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures." - Albert Einstein
> 
> 
> -- 
> <---->
> 

Like Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Nudds is living in fear of false science, and 
outright deception. 
I agree that steps should be taken to research the results of our 
actions. I DO NOT agree that taking blind action, on insufficient 
evidence and false science, is either justified, or smart.

There will be no further replies to this author...
******************************
From the PC of Doug Bissett
doug.bissett at ibm.net
The " at " must be changed to "@"
******************************