[opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:20:09 -0800

Some of us are a bit more idle than normal, "waiting" for ATSC m/h to be a
candidate standard.

John Willkie

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Tom Barry
Enviado el: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince

As much as I think global warming is a potentially serious issue I'm 
very surprised at how long the heated (no pun!) discussion has persisted 
on this list.

Is it just a slow month in dtvland?  Or are we all now just waiting for 
February to see how it actually goes with the dtv transition.

And remember when talking about the weather was a safe topic? ;-)

- Tom



John Willkie wrote:
> Kind of "funny" isn't it, that none of the models used by the IPCC
"process"
> take into account dynamic solar conditions?
> 
>  
> 
> By the way, the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor - we really need
to
> control that one.  Maybe drying up the seas and all bodies of water will
> help.  Another significant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide.  Limiting
that
> will lead to fewer humans and fewer trees.  
> 
>  
> 
> John Willkie
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de Mark A. Aitken
> Enviado el: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:02 PM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince
> 
>  
> 
> MAA - Sorry, missed most of the article in my copy/paste...
> 
> 
> Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming
> 
> 
> 06.25.2007 
> 
> His studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in
> global warming. So are humans off the hook? And if so, why does he use
> compact fluorescent lightbulbs?
> 
> by Marion Long 
> 
> Most leading climate experts don't agree with Henrik Svensmark, the
> 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish
> National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows
> for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in
> determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that
cosmic
> rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar
> activity-which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the
> atmosphere-could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This,
Svensmark
> contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century.
> Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we've been led
to
> believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because
> climate models are so limited.
> 
> There is probably no greater scientific heresy today than questioning the
> warming role of CO2, especially in the wake of the report issued by the
> United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That
report
> warned that nations must cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and
insisted
> that "unless drastic action is taken . . . millions of poor people will
> suffer from hunger, thirst, floods, and disease." As astrophysicist
?Eugene
> Parker, the discoverer of solar wind, writes in the foreword to
Svensmark's
> new book, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, "Global
> warming has become a political issue both in government and in the
> scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by 'eminent'
> scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets
> the established orthodoxy."
> 
> We talked with the unexpectedly modest and soft-spoken Henrik Svensmark
> about his work, the criticism it has received, and truth versus hype in
> climate science.
> 
>  
> 
> Was there something in the Danish weather when you were growing up that
> inspired you to study clouds and climate?
> 
> I remember being fascinated by clouds when I was young, but I never
> suspected that I would one day be working on these problems, trying to
solve
> the puzzle of how clouds are actually formed. My background is in physics,
> not in atmospheric science. At the time when I left school and began
> working, it was almost impossible to get any permanent work whatsoever in
> science. That was why, after doing a lot of physics on short-term things
at
> various places, I took a job at the Meteorological Society. And once I was
> there I thought, "Well, I had better start doing something." So I started
> thinking about problems that were relevant in that field, and that was how
I
> started thinking about the sun and how it might affect Earth.
> 
> It was a purely scientific impulse. With my background in theoretical
> physics, I had no-well, certainly not very much-knowledge about global
> warming. I simply thought that if there is a connection to the sun, that
> would be very interesting, and I certainly had no idea it would be viewed
as
> so controversial.
> 
>  
> 
> In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun's activity could
explain
> most or all of the recent rise in Earth's temperature, the chairman of the
> United Nations Intergovernmental Panel called your announcement "extremely
> naive and irresponsible." How did you react?
> 
> I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I
was
> doing was terrible. I couldn't understand it because when you are a
> physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be
> explained, something that doesn't fit, that is what you are excited about.
> If there is a possibility that you might have an explanation, that is
> something that everybody thinks is what you should pursue. Here was
exactly
> the opposite reaction. It was as though people were saying to me, "This is
> something that you should not have done." That was very strange for me,
and
> it has been more or less like that ever since.
> 
>  
> 
> So it's difficult to do climate research without being suspected of having
a
> hidden agenda? 
> 
> Yes, it is frustrating. People can use this however they want, and I can't
> stop them. Some are accusing me of doing it for political reasons; some
are
> saying I'm doing it for the oil companies. This is just ridiculous. I
think
> there's a huge interest in discrediting what I'm doing, but I've sort of
> gotten used to this. I've convinced myself the only thing I can do is just
> to continue doing good science. And I think time will show that we are on
> the right track.
> 
>  
> 
> +++
> 
> Do you ever worry that people will take your findings and use them to
> support unwarranted or even harmful conclusions?
> 
> I would be happy to kill the project if I could find out that there was
> something that didn't fit or that I no longer believed in it. When we
> started, it was just a simple hypothesis based on a correlation, and
> correlations are, of course, something that could be quite dubious, and
they
> could go away if you get better data. But this work has only strengthened
> itself over the years.
> 
>  
> 
> What first made you suspect that changes in the sun are having a
significant
> impact on global warming?
> 
> I began my investigations by studying work done in 1991 by Eigil
> Fiin-Christensen and Knud Lassen Fiin-Christensen. They had looked at
solar
> activity over the last 100 years and found a remarkable correlation to
> temperatures. I knew that many people dismissed that result, but I thought
> the correlation was so good that I could not help but start
speculating-what
> could be the relation? Then I heard a suggestion that it might be cosmic
> rays, changing the chemistry high up in the atmosphere. I immediately
> thought, "Well, if that is going to work, it has to be through the
clouds."
> 
> That was the initial idea. Then I remembered seeing a science experiment
at
> my high school in Elsinore, in which our teacher showed us what is called
a
> cloud chamber, and seeing tracks of radioactive particles, which look like
> small droplets. So I thought to myself, "That would be the way to do it."
I
> started to obtain data from satellites, which actually was quite a
detective
> work at that time, but I did start to find data, and to my surprise there
> seems to be a correlation between changes in cosmic rays and changes in
> clouds. And I think in early January 1996, I finally got a curve, which
was
> very impressive with respect to the correlation. It was only over a short
> period of time, because the data were covering just seven years or
something
> like that. So it was almost nothing, but it was a nice correlation.
> 
>  
> 
> How exactly does the mechanism work, linking changes in the sun with
climate
> change on Earth?
> 
> The basic idea is that solar activity can turn the cloudiness up and down,
> which has an effect on the warming or cooling of Earth's surface
> temperature. The key agents in this are cosmic rays, which are energetic
> particles coming from the interstellar media-they come from remnants of
> supernova explosions mainly. These energetic particles have to enter into
> what we call the heliosphere, which is the large volume of space that is
> dominated by our sun, through the solar wind, which is a plasma of
> electrons, atomic nuclei, and associated magnetic fields that are
streaming
> nonstop from the sun. Cosmic-ray particles have to penetrate the sun's
> magnetic field. And if the sun and the solar wind are very active-as they
> are right now-they will not allow so many cosmic rays to reach Earth.
Fewer
> cosmic rays mean fewer clouds will be formed, and so there will be a
warmer
> Earth. If the sun and the solar wind are not so active, then more cosmic
> rays can come in. That means more clouds [reflecting away more sunlight]
and
> a cooler Earth.
> 
> Now it's well known that solar activity can turn up and down the amount of
> cosmic rays that come to Earth. But the next question was a complete
> unknown: Why should cosmic rays affect clouds? Because at that time, when
we
> began this work, there was no mechanism that could explain this.
> Meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud
formation.
> 
>  
> 
> You and a half-dozen colleagues carried out a landmark study of cosmic
rays
> and clouds while working in the basement of the Danish National Space
> Center. How did you do it?
> 
> We spent five or six years building an experiment here in Copenhagen, to
see
> if we could find a connection. We named the experiment SKY, which means
> "cloud" in Danish. Natural cosmic rays came through the ceiling, and
> ultraviolet lamps played the part of the sun. We had a huge chamber, with
> about eight cubic meters of air, and the whole idea was to have air that
is
> as clean as you have over the Pacific, and then of course, to be able to
> control what's in the chamber. So we had minute trace gases as you have in
> the real atmosphere, of sulfur dioxide and ozone and water vapor, and then
> by keeping these things constant and just changing the ionization [the
> abundance of electrically charged atoms] in the chamber a little bit, we
> could see that we could produce these small aerosols, which are the basic
> building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei.
> 
> So the idea is that in the atmosphere, the ionization is helping produce
> cloud condensation nuclei, and that changes the amount and type of clouds.
> If you change the clouds, of course, you change the amount of energy that
> reaches Earth's surface. So it's a very effective way, with almost no
energy
> input, to change the energy balance of Earth and therefore the
temperature.
> 
> +++
> 
> There were so many strange surprises, and many times we were busy just
> trying to understand what was going on. The mechanism we seemed to be
> finding was very different from any theoretical ideas about how it should
> work. It seemed to be much more effective than we had ever imagined. It
> seems as if an electron is able to help form a small particle-a molecular
> cluster, as we call it-and then the electron can jump off and help another
> one. So it's like a catalytic process. It was a big surprise that it is so
> effective.
> 
> These types of experiments had not really been done before, and we had to
> find new techniques in order to do them. Once we had the results, it was
> necessary to understand completely what was going on. So it was a very
> intense period of work, almost hypnotic.
> 
>  
> 
> Now there are other experiments, like the CLOUD project, also designed to
> investigate the effects of cosmic rays. How will this build on your work?
> 
> CLOUD is an international collaboration [sponsored by the European
> Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN] that is taking place in
Geneva,
> but it's going to take a while before any results come out of that. It was
> approved last year, and building the machine will take at least three
years.
> That's a problem with science: You have to have a lot of patience because
> results are very slow to come.
> 
>  
> 
> If the scientists at CLOUD are able to prove that cosmic rays can change
> Earth's cloud cover, would that force climate scientists to reevaluate
their
> ideas about global warming?
> 
> Definitely, because in the standard view of climate change, you think of
> clouds as a result of the climate that you have. Our idea reverses that,
> turns things completely upside down, saying that the climate is a result
of
> how the clouds are.
> 
>  
> 
> How do you see your work fitting into the grand debates about the causes
of
> global warming and the considerations of what ought to be done about it?
> 
> I think-no, I believe-that the sun has had an influence in the past and is
> changing climate at the present, and it most certainly will do so in the
> future. We live in a unique time in history, because this period has the
> highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years, and maybe even in 8,000
> years. And we know that changes in solar activity have made significant
> changes in climate. For instance, we had the little ice age about 300
years
> ago. You had very few sunspots [markings on the face of the sun that
> indicate heightened solar activity] between 1650 and 1715, and for
example,
> in Sweden in 1696, it caused the harvest to go wrong. People were
> starving-100,000 people died-and it was very desperate times, all
coinciding
> with this very low solar activity. The last time we had high solar
activity
> was during the medieval warming, which was when all of the cathedrals were
> built in Europe. And if you go 1,000 years back, you also had high solar
> activity, and that was when Rome was at its height. So I think there's
good
> evidence that these are significant changes that are happening naturally.
If
> we are talking about the next century, there might be a human effect on
> climate change on top of that, but the natural effect from solar effect
will
> be important. This should be recognized in the models and calculations
that
> are being used to make predictions.
> 
>  
> 
> Why is there such resistance to doing that? Is the science that conflicted
> or confusing? Or is politics intervening?
> 
> I think it's the latter, and I think it's both. And I think there's a fear
> that it will turn out, or that it would be suggested, that the man-made
> contribution is smaller than what you would expect if you look at CO2
alone.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Have you had a hard time getting funding?
> 
> For an eternity, I would say. But there are no oil companies funding my
> work, not at all. It sounds funny, but the Danish Carlsberg Foundation-you
> know, the one who makes beer-they have been of real support to me. They
have
> a big foundation; in Denmark it's one of the biggest resources for
science.
> It's because the founder of Carlsberg wanted to use scientific methods to
> make the best beer. It's probably the best beer in the world, because of
> science.
> 
>  
> 
> If cosmic radiation is in fact the principal cause of global warming, is
> that good or bad news for human beings?
> 
> That's a good question because you would have to say that we cannot
predict
> the sun. And, of course, that would mean that we couldn't do anything
about
> it.
> 
>  
> 
> +++
> 
> But if humans, through carbon dioxide emissions, are affecting climate
less
> than we think, would that mean we may have more time to reduce the harmful
> effects?
> 
> Yes, that could of course be a consequence. But I don't know how to get to
> such a conclusion because right now everything is set up that CO2 is a
major
> disaster in society.
> 
>  
> 
> Do you agree that carbon dioxide is having at least some impact on Earth's
> current warming?
> 
> Yes, but you have to give the sun a role. If you include the sun in the
> right way, the effect of CO2 must be smaller. The question is, how much
> smaller? All we know about the effect of CO2 is really based on climate
> models that predict how climate should be in 50 to 100 years, and these
> climate models cannot actually model clouds at all, so they are really
poor.
> When you look at them, the models are off by many hundreds percent. It's a
> well-known fact that clouds are the major uncertainty in any climate
model.
> So the tools that we are using to make these predictions are not actually
> very good.
> 
>  
> 
> What do you hope to do next in pursuit of your theory?
> 
> I'm extremely excited about our next experiment, which will happen in the
> next couple months. We are planning to go one kilometer below Earth's
> surface because when we do an experiment in the basement we cannot get rid
> of the radiation. Cosmic rays are so penetrating that there's always
> ionization in our chamber and we cannot get to zero ionization. I think it
> will be the first time that people are attempting an experiment where
there
> is no ionization present. I think it will be quite fascinating because it
> will tell us something about the details in the mechanism.
> 
>  
> 
> Do you think then that individuals and societies as a whole need to try to
> conserve energy? Do you use compact fluorescent lightbulbs, for instance?
> 
> Yes, yes, we use those. And I ride a bicycle. There are good reasons to
> conserve our resources and find a more economical way of using energy, but
> the argumentation is not linked necessarily to climate.
> 
>  
> 
> At this stage in your work, how confident are you that your basic theories
> are correct?
> 
> I think it is almost certain that cosmic rays are responsible for changes
in
> climate. I think now I have very good evidence, and I think I've come up
> with some very good evidence that it is clouds. Of course, we cannot
discuss
> the exact mechanism, but I think we have some very important fragments of
> these ideas. One extrapolation we could make, for instance: Would this
> mechanism work in an ancient atmosphere? Would these processes still
happen?
> That is something I don't know.
> 
>  
> 
> You discuss your work as part of an emerging field that you call
> "cosmoclimatology." What is that?
> 
> It is the idea that processes in space and what is happening here on Earth
> are connected. It is this idea that when Earth is in a certain spiral arm
of
> the Milky Way, you can associate that with a certain geological period.
> Previously, the idea was of Earth as a sort of isolated system on which
> processes evolved. Now all of a sudden it seems as if our position in the
> galaxy is important for what has happened and is happening here on Earth.
It
> is this connection between Earth and space that's exciting and why I have
> given it this name. Most of this research has taken place just within the
> last 10 years, and it is truly multidisciplinary, ranging from solar
physics
> and atmospheric chemistry to geology and meteorology-even high-particle
> physicists are involved. The people who are doing space-related
observations
> are very happy that there could be a connection from space to Earth
because
> it makes a good argumentation for understanding processes out there.
> 
> These connections, which combine such a variety of disciplines and create
> opportunities for many lines of work, are surprising and wonderful. It has
> been a real challenge for me, though, because I have to look at so many
> different fields in order to work.
> 
>  
> 
> You've faced more than a few hard knocks in pursuing your scientific
career.
> What keeps you going?
> 
>>From the beginning, I have found this to be a really interesting problem,
> and now, I think, it is the potential of it that draws me on. It is
> something which started as a simple idea and seems to be continually
> extending, or expanding. That has really been the most important thing. I
> mean, for instance, I would never have thought that we would find these
> correlations between the cosmic rays and the evolution of the Milky Way
and
> life on Earth. I never expected that all of these things are connected in
a
> beautiful way.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/18/2008 3:55 PM, Mark A. Aitken wrote: 
> 
>
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark
> 
> 
> Discover Interview
<http://discovermagazine.com/columns/discover-interview>
> Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming 
> 
> 
> His studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in
> global warming. So are humans off the hook? And if so, why does he use
> compact fluorescent lightbulbs?
> 
> by Marion Long 
> 
> published online June 25, 2007 
> 
> Most leading climate experts don't agree with Henrik Svensmark, the
> 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish
> National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows
> for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in
> determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that
cosmic
> rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar
> activity-which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the
> atmosphere-could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This,
Svensmark
> contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century.
> Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we've been led
to
> believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because
> climate models are so limited.
> 
> There is probably no greater scientific heresy today than questioning the
> warming role of CO2, especially in the wake of the report issued by the
> United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That
report
> warned that nations must cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and
insisted
> that "unless drastic action is taken . . . millions of poor people will
> suffer from hunger, thirst, floods, and disease." As astrophysicist
?Eugene
> Parker, the discoverer of solar wind, writes in the foreword to
Svensmark's
> new book, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, "Global
> warming has become a political issue both in government and in the
> scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by 'eminent'
> scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets
> the established orthodoxy."
> 
> We talked with the unexpectedly modest and soft-spoken Henrik Svensmark
> about his work, the criticism it has received, and truth versus hype in
> climate science.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/17/2008 9:18 AM, Mark A. Aitken wrote: 
> 
> Am I chicken little for saying "The ice is growing, the ice is
growing!"...
> 
> 
>  
>
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
> 3385.htm>
>
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
> 3385.htm>
> 
> Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels.  In
> sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global
sea
> ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of
> ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the
fastest
> pace since record-keeping began in 1979.
> 
> The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23
million
> square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference
> between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes
much
> slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers. 
> 
> That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the
current
> decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again
zero,
> indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from
> 1979-2000.
> 
> Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the
University
> of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while
> the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term
> decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon
stop
> growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of
global
> warming.
> 
> Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of
> Environmental
>
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
> 3385.htm>  Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very
> odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior
Fellow
> with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the
> Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern
> Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a
> warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?"
Michaels
> adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling
>
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
> 3385.htm>  trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate
> model. 
> 
> On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea
> ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice
anchored
> on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated
> <http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf> that the Antarctic
continent
> -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in
> recent years.
> 
> The primary instrument for measuring sea ice today is the AMSR-E
> <http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/AMSR/>  microwave radiometer, an instrument
> package aboard NASA's AQUA satellite
>
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
> 3385.htm> . AQUA was launched in 2002, as part of NASA's Earth Observing
> System (EOS).
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/13/2008 9:14 AM, Craig Birkmaier wrote: 
> 
> At 1:55 PM -0800 11/12/08, Dale Kelly wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I read your postings with great interest. The Blogs have little or no

> veracity: their conclusions are not even substantiated by their posted
data.
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree, but we al;ready knew that. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply can not make a valid case regarding climate change or most
other 
> natural phenomena, by cherry picking short term data*, which they do. 
> 
> 
> Thanks you! Seems that this is exactly what the new religion of
> environmentalism has been doing for several decades. Have you ever looked
at
> some of the analyses of the claims in Gore's movie? Talk about cherry
> picking! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Yes, 
> the arctic ice has thickened slightly in 2008, relative to 2007 (the
lowest 
> year in recent history), but it remains at a very low level compared to
the 
> charts base line level. How about inspecting your own data before
attempting
> 
> to build a case. 
> 
> 
> I was simply using these reports to corroborate the FACT that we are now
> entering a period of cooling... 
> 
> By the way, did you see any of the Fox News Palin interview at her home in
> Alaska - in particular the part where they were riding a snow mobile at
> about 70 MPH on the bay behind here  home? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *see Cliff's recent postings. 
> 
> Professor Easterbrook's study very graphically documents that warming and 
> cooling cycle do occur naturally at an almost sinusoidal rate but then his

> study is incorrectly used in attempts to invalidate global warming
concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion. I believe his work fully demonstrates the absurdity of
the
> claims made by Gore, the IPCC and NASA. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irrefutable facts are: in concert with the natural warming and cooling

> cycles, the global mean temperature is steadily rising: Each high is
warmer 
> that the previous high and each low is warmer than the previous low and
the 
> past fifty years has seen rapid changes in the mean temperature baseline. 
> 
> 
> Obviously you have not looked closely at this data. Please look at "chart
b"
> on the second page of the Easterbrook pdf that I posted yesterday. i do
> agree that the trend line has been up, but even this should be placed in
the
> context of a 1000 year moving window, not a single century or just a few
> decades. 
> 
> We have been through a significant cooling period in the last 50 years. In
> fact the short term data was so "compelling" that the same folks warning
us
> about global warming were warning us about global cooling just a few
decades
> ago. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rapid temperature increase could at least partially be fueled by
human 
> activities and dozens of scientific agencies/universities and thousands of

> scientist's worldwide, believe this to be the case and Mr. Hansen of NASA 
> cannot have corrupted them all. 
> 
> 
> When i was a kid i had this wonderful naivety about science and
engineering.
> These were admirable professions since they are driven by the scientific
> method and the need to apply physics, chemistry, et al to real world
> problems. 
> 
> When i participated in the US DTV process, that childhood vision was
> shattered. I learned that you can buy scientists and engineers quite
easily
> and that you can spin the facts, and the physics to your purpose. 
> 
> I shall never forget the NHK white papers in support of interlace... 
> 
> :-( 
> 
> Yes, global climate change "could" be related to human activity. It would
be
> absurd to think otherwise. In my lifetime I have seen the benefits of
being
> a good caretaker of our environment. We have cleaned up the air and
rivers,
> mitigated ground water contamination from those evil refineries, oil
depots
> and gas stations, and enriched the legal profession via the Superfund. 
> 
> Clearly, climate change is also related to MANY other things that are far
> easier to substantiate. Funny what happens when politicians with an agenda
> start throwing money at "scientists" to provide research to support their
> agendas. 
> 
> Regards 
> Craig 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: 
> 
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org 
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: