[lit-ideas] Re: Shadows, Fog, and Money

  • From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:09:35 -0400

>Are these your surmises or do you have some references
>or sources (not that we don't trust you) which support
>them?

I've never seen any purported proof of "global warming" that I couldn't 
find an alternative argument against.

>I wonder how you know that thermometers used in scientific experiments in 
>1905 were 'only accurate to
>one degree' (within one degree?), the year in which Einstein was doing 
>work on the kinetic theory of heat.

I'm not saying that there weren't more accurate thermometers, I'm just 
saying that, before the industrial revolution was in full swing, there is 
no way that people would have had the foresight and indeed the funds to 
obtain such thermometers to record every day temperatures -- the ones that 
were in fact recorded. There is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that the 
ways in which temperatures are taken today are much different than they 
were taken 100 years ago.

>Indeed they have, and they will increasingly go if the polar ice caps 
>continue to melt. Do you have any examples of the phenomena you're talking 
>about? (Some
>people in the American West might be inclined to think that mudflats don't 
>lie.)

I've been alive for 39 years and I can remember most of the last 37 past 
years. All of those years have been lived [other than vacations] in 
virtually the same few hundred square miles. Some years it's snowed in May. 
Some years it's been 80 in October. Some years it's snowed relentlessly for 
5 months. Some years it's been very mild and we could golf on New Year's 
Day. This is just local observation from one guy's town. I don't chalk any 
of that up to "global warming", that's just the way it is. Humans can't 
even predict weather 7 days from now, how the HELL are they supposed to 
figure out global warming?

 >The effect of heat retaining buildings, paved spaces, etc., is well 
known, but you might explain (1) why this phenomenon doesn't contribute to 
a general
>warming of the atmosphere (there are not two kinds of air, 'city,' and 
>'country')

The area occupied by cities is in the tens of thousands of square miles, 
the area occupied by the land in the world is 200 million square miles -- 
the Earth is 800 million sqaure miles. My contention is that MOST 
temperatures are taken within reasonable distance to those occupied cities 
and they CERTAINLY were 100 years ago. There is no consistency and actual 
evening of these samples and any attempt to account for such things are 
simply educated guesses. Such HUGE error introduction is surely enough to 
account for most of that one degree change.

>  and (2) why cities are 'heating up' (if not from human activities).

Cities ARE heating up. See above. Big whoop. Cities are SMALL areas of the 
earth. They mean nothing to the overall scheme of things. They mean 
EVERYTHING to the unbalanced amount of temperature sampling that are 
adversely weighting the 'average' global temperature.

>There are die hards who don't believe the earth is 'warming up,' however 
>this is understood. They have yet to explain the melting of the polar ice 
>caps and
>the general retreat of mountain glaciers throughout the world. (There has 
>been over time cyclical advances and retreats of glaciers locally, of course.)
>

What do you mean by "general retreat"? Does that mean that SOME are 
advancing? If so, how can you POSSIBLY explain that. Afterall, the Earth is 
warming up EVERYWHERE!!!

>'U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are mostly (98.5 percent) accounted for by 
>the combustion of fossil fuels , such as coal, natural gas , and petroleum .
>Because fossil fuels are of considerable economic value and their 
>consumption is carefully monitored, energy-related carbon dioxide 
>emissions can be
>estimated more reliably than any other emissions source. Table 4 shows 
>trends in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions estimated in million metric tons 
>of carbon.
>Carbon units can be converted to carbon dioxide (at full molecular weight) 
>by multiplying by 3.667.' [US Department of Energy; data from 1998.]
>
>(This does not conflict with PS's earlier claim; it does suggest that CO2 
>levels are increased by the processes mentioned above. And those processes 
>are not
>being meaningfully controlled, and are, in fact, globally increasing.)

Okay, so CO2 levels are globally increasing. I'll grant you that, but by 
miniscule amounts. Let's say we've quardupled the amount of CO2 that we put 
into the atmosphere. That means that what was previous 98.5 --> 1.5 % 
(natural to manmade) is now 95 -->5%. God, there is like 5 times the number 
of people on this planet that there was even 50 years ago. Isn't it 
obvioius that the amount of CO2 is going to go up? Again, this is an 
accepted fact. The numbers HAVE gone up, but there is no sustainable proof 
that CO2 levels CAUSE what people think of as "Global Warming".

>What motive(s) would NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the DOE, 
>have in common?

Who knows. Why does NASA want us to believe that they've been to the 
moon?  The national academy of science (as an academy) is most likely full 
of people who join academies and thus, want to go with the flow. The DOE 
does none of its own research and therefore must try to couch the 
'incriminating' evidence into politically correct jargon while admitting 
that things are happening. It doesn't know any better because it is dumb.

>And what is meant by 'behave in a certain way?' Exactly what sort of 
>behaviour do you have in mind?

Cower in the face of the sky falling. It's global warming doncha know! Fear 
mongering. It's the latest thing. Don't you watch Michael Moore films?

Paul 


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2005