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

Bill Todd wrote:
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.

Unlike climatologists, who are batting 0 for 14, or worse.

- bill


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... The goals of the paper in question, while inadequately realized, were at least admirably specific, and they did not include examination of prior periods. ... collision of cold air with very warm air. ... That would be interesting if you have some credible citations to support it, since a lot of reporting has suggested somewhat the opposite. ... it seems likely to me that those scientists are in a far better position to make that determination than you are. ...
    (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)