Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi
Desmo model?

Hmm, you need to look, I proved my point. Now, why are you trying to
change the subject, Bill? It's your typical m.o. because you are almost
always shown to be wrong, then you change the subject!!!! Do you not
call *7 MILLION OBSERVATIONS* conclusive??? Does that mean that you've
seen over seven million Autolite carbs that have a tag on a bolt?

Del Cecchi wrote:
I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.


Especially putting mercury & lead in the drinking water. That's the
really helpful part, ice-age-wise.


thunder wrote:
It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with
any certainty.

What's funny to me is the way the right wing whackos are insisting that
it's perfectly OK to trash what's left of the environment because
'Global Warming Is Junk Science' and declare that nobody knows how the
environment really works, but at the same time insist that *they* know
for sure mankind isn't the cause.

"As we know, there are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know that we don't know."
-Donald Rumsfeld

Maybe Dell, Bill, Scooby, John, Bert, Nobby, and all the other
Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will take this guys word for it?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

"As we know, there are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know that we don't know."
-Donald Rumsfeld

Maybe Dell, Bill, Scooby, John, Bert, Nobby, and all the other Bush/Cheney
Cheerleaders will take this guys word for it?

Anyone with an analytical mind will understand the above quote as they read
it.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need
to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood
with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated"
amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was
just mocking it.

But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in
http://www.realclimate.org

The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds and
the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo Haline
Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break
down.

The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual
scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent.

del

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:41:49 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood
with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was
just mocking it.


First, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that site.


But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in
http://www.realclimate.org

The Gulf Stream is not in any danger? How do you know? Certainly, not
from that site. The final line in that article sums it up, "Thus while
continued monitoring of this key climatic area is clearly warranted, the
imminent chilling of the Europe is a ways off yet."


The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds and
the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo Haline
Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break
down.

Uh, and what causes the wind? Look, I don't know if we are headed for an
Ice Age. I'm not even sure if this period of global warming is natural or
man made, but prudence would dictate treading carefully. I have great
faith in Mother Natures ability to heal herself. Unfortunately, I fear,
as a species we might not like the healing process.

The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual
scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent.

del

On 10 Aug 2005 08:56:15 -0700, wrote:

An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for both Doug and Chris Rader
- they've done some great work in the vein of the Cousteaus.

However, they seem to consistently ignore the historical data, which
goes back at least 300 hundred years, about "grend 'y gloryus pfysh"
often seen in cycles along the New England coast. Happens every time
the Gulf Stream moves inshore you see tropical fish - often in
abundance. In fact, when the Mystic Aquarium was first established,
one of these cycles occurred and their collection was increased two
fold just by collecting the fish off Fort Wetherwell in Rhode Island.

I remember in the mid-sixties, right before I graduated, doing a dive
off Halfway Rock (off Marblehead) and seeing angel fish, trigger fish
and other interesting species normally associated with the tropics.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a factor - I am saying that
there is historical data reaching back into an era where pollution
wasn't a factor that would seem to contradict some of the conclusions
of the article.

Later,

Tom

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:41:49 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need
to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood
with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated"
amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I
was
just mocking it.


First, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that site.


But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in
http://www.realclimate.org

The Gulf Stream is not in any danger? How do you know? Certainly, not
from that site. The final line in that article sums it up, "Thus
while
continued monitoring of this key climatic area is clearly warranted,
the
imminent chilling of the Europe is a ways off yet."


The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds
and
the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo
Haline
Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break
down.

Uh, and what causes the wind? Look, I don't know if we are headed for
an
Ice Age. I'm not even sure if this period of global warming is natural
or
man made, but prudence would dictate treading carefully. I have great
faith in Mother Natures ability to heal herself. Unfortunately, I
fear,
as a species we might not like the healing process.

The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual
scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent.

del

I think the scientific position is that what is commonly known as the
gulf stream is a shallow current driven by wind. Wind is driven by the
atmospheric circulation, and I haven't heard anyone saying it will quit
blowing or the jet stream is in danger due to global warming.

The current or circulation pattern folks are worried about is THC which
is a convective thing driven by cold salty water sinking in the north.
If too much fresh water comes from the melting ice, then this could
weaken and that would be a problem. That's the global warming
connection.

My point wasn't that there may not be a concern or a problem or however
you want to put it, but that calling the phenomenum in question the "Gulf
Stream" wasn't really correct. They are interconnected but different.
Or so that site led me to believe.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 10 Aug 2005 08:56:15 -0700, wrote:

An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for both Doug and Chris Rader
- they've done some great work in the vein of the Cousteaus.

However, they seem to consistently ignore the historical data, which
goes back at least 300 hundred years, about "grend 'y gloryus pfysh"
often seen in cycles along the New England coast. Happens every time
the Gulf Stream moves inshore you see tropical fish - often in
abundance. In fact, when the Mystic Aquarium was first established,
one of these cycles occurred and their collection was increased two
fold just by collecting the fish off Fort Wetherwell in Rhode Island.

I remember in the mid-sixties, right before I graduated, doing a dive
off Halfway Rock (off Marblehead) and seeing angel fish, trigger fish
and other interesting species normally associated with the tropics.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a factor - I am saying that
there is historical data reaching back into an era where pollution
wasn't a factor that would seem to contradict some of the conclusions
of the article.

Later,

Tom

This is the fact that when you are heavily invested in hammers, you tend
to try to make everything out to be a nail. :-) It's human nature.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the
natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable.
Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as
what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea
temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global
warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did
contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are
now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later
the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE
SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a
Guzzi
Desmo model?

Another few holes in kevins 'proof'

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...b62Em4,00.html
By JAMES SCHLESINGER
August 8, 2005
"Almost unnoticed, the theology of global warming has in recent weeks
suffered a number of setbacks. In referring to the theology of global
warming, one is not focusing on evidence of the earth's warming in recent
decades, particularly in the Arctic, but rather on the widespread insistence
that such warming is primarily a consequence of man's activities -- and
that, if only we collectively had the will, we could alter our behavior and
stop the warming of the planet.

It was Michael Crichton who pointed out in his Commonwealth Club lecture
some years ago that environmentalism had become the religion of Western
elites. Indeed it has. Most notably, the burning of fossil fuels (a
concomitant of economic growth and rising living standards) is the secular
counterpart of man's Original Sin. If only we would repent and sin no more,
mankind's actions could end the threat of further global warming. By
implication, the cost, which is never fully examined, is bearable. So far
the evidence is not convincing. It is notable that 13 of the 15 older
members of the European Union have failed to achieve their quotas under the
Kyoto accord -- despite the relatively slow growth of the European
economies.

The drumbeat on global warming was intended to reach a crescendo during
the run-up to the summit at Gleneagles. Prime Minister Blair has been a
leader in the global warming crusade. (Whether his stance reflects simple
conviction or the need to propitiate his party's Left after Iraq is
unknown.) In the event, for believers, Gleneagles turned out to be a major
disappointment.

On the eve of the summit, the Economic Committee of the House of Lords
released a report sharply at variance with the prevailing European
orthodoxy. Some key points were reported in the Guardian, a London newspaper
not hostile to that orthodoxy:

. The science of climate change leaves "considerable uncertainty" about
the future.

. There are concerns about the objectivity of the international panel of
scientists that has led research into climate change.

. The Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions will make little
difference and is likely to fail.

. The U.K.'s energy and climate policy contains "dubious assumptions"
about renewable energy and energy efficiency.


Most notably, the Committee itself concluded that there are concerns about
the objectivity of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
process and about the IPCC's crucial emissions scenario
exercise"..........................



"Much has been made of the assertion, repeated regularly in the media,
that "the science is settled," based upon a supposed "scientific consensus."
Yet, some years ago in the "Oregon Petition" between 17,000 and 18,000
signatories, almost all scientists, made manifest that the science was not
settled, declaring:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate."

Several additional observations are in order. First, the "consensus" is
ostensibly based upon the several Assessment Reports of the IPCC. One must
bear in mind that the summary reports are political documents put together
by government policy makers, who, to put it mildly, treat rather cavalierly
the expressed uncertainties and caveats in the underlying scientific
reports. Moreover, the IPCC was created to support a specific political
goal. It is directed to support the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change. In turn, the Convention calls for an effective international
response to deal with "the common concern of all mankind" -- in short, to
reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Statements by the leaders of the
IPCC have been uninhibitedly political.

Second, science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo,
Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on
speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is
more than computer simulations -- whose conclusions mirror the assumptions
built in the model. Irrespective of the repeated assertions regarding a
"scientific consensus," there is neither a consensus nor is consensus
science."

It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)