Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Maverick wrote:

....

Funny that they don't take into account the medieval warming period around 1200 ad. And then the following mini-iceage.

The goals of the paper in question, while inadequately realized, were at least admirably specific, and they did not include examination of prior periods. Since the author clearly had a bit more on his plate than he could adequately handle, probably a prudent choice - but give him credit for recognizing up front the value in limiting complexity and potentially extraneous circumstances as much as possible.

Global warming has
been taking place since 1680.

Give or take a few decades, anyway. Since the use of fossil fuels started rising significantly at around that time (and had in fact been going on at lower levels for millennia before that), a connection between the two is hardly inconceivable.

We need a certain amount of CO2 for plant
growth and also population growth, else we will see major problems.

If we're in any danger of having too *little* CO2 in our atmosphere any time soon I've certainly heard nothing about it - so please provide citations if that comment was meant to be relevant.

What I do see is that with the current violent weather patterns is the collision of cold air with very warm air. In the future and following the trend we will see less violent weather patterns.

That would be interesting if you have some credible citations to support it (you can take it as a given that the propaganda film discussed above does not qualify as such), since a lot of reporting has suggested somewhat the opposite.

What isn't addressed by GW groups is that the other planets in this solar system are also heating up.

I'd be interested in credible citations for that as well: it would certainly not directly refute the thesis that our own activities are exacerbating the problem, but it would raise legitimate questions as to exactly how much they may be.

I do see that our scientists don't
know enough yet to make the current claims they have been making so far.

Actually, it seems likely to me that those scientists are in a far better position to make that determination than you are. Perhaps you don't know what their precise claims are, or perhaps you don't understand their exact bases for them.

Heck, they can't even explain precisely why electrical currents occur in a generator.

No, but they have an *excellent* record of being able not only to predict them but to use these predictions to make significant improvements.

- bill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... If we're in any danger of having too *little* CO2 in our atmosphere ... the collision of cold air with very warm air. ... I'd be interested in credible citations for that as well: ... it seems likely to me that those scientists are in a far ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... If we're in any danger of having too *little* CO2 in our atmosphere any time soon I've certainly heard nothing about it - so please provide citations if that comment was meant to be relevant. ... That would be interesting if you have some credible citations to support it, since a lot of reporting has suggested somewhat the opposite. ... That is well known fact in tornado areas where hot air from the lower levels merge with the upper cold air. ... The film that you think is propaganda refutes the bogus claims of the political agendists that are pushing their absurd program. ...
    (comp.os.vms)