On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote: > > Jesse Aldridge wrote: > > The connection to global warming is that there are > > situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because > > people don't understand the situation, but because > > circumstances compel them to take harmful (though > > logically sound) actions. For example, China and > > India don't want to cut emissions, because they want > > to become "the new US". And the US doesn't want to > > cut emissions because we want to retain our status as > > "#1". I can easily see the industrialized world > > continuing to make half-assed efforts that fail to > > effectively address the underlying sources of > > greenhouse gases. Instead we will come up with > > ad-hoc, expensive adaptations to a hotter planet. > > Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam.
The science is beyond me, but I'll take the word of 100's of climate scientists from many countries over several decades over an economist who says what people want to hear. see http://tinyurl.com/yag8tpn > The direct, scientifically established effects of CO2 > will warm the planet about 0.5 degrees centigrade by > 2100, which is small compared to the random century to > century drift of climate. The sky is falling effects > are the result of pseudo science, junk science. For a > relatively easy to understand summary of the latest > fraud to be exposed, see > <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx> > one of many such discoveries of junk science. > > The short of the above story is that the evidence that the > twentieth century has been warmer than the past turns > out to be an average taken over TEN TREE growing in a > cold climate, whose growth therefore should reflect the > length of the warm season, ten trees selected from a > large population of trees by Briffa, ten trees that have > appeared again and again in a variety of supposedly > independent graphs of temperature that supposed confirm > each other. Of these ten trees, ONE TREE, Yamal06, showed > remarkable and unusual growth as compared with fossil > trees. However, it turns out these were ten *selected* > trees, selected without explanation from a much larger > set of measured trees. > > When we average over whole set of similar nearby trees > their growth patterns are similar to those of fossil > trees from the same area. And similarly, if do our own > selection, by averaging over nine of the ten trees that > Briffa selected, and exclude Yamal06 as an outlier, > again the growth patterns of the nine we select of the > ten Briffa selected are similar to that of the fossil > tree population. > > There is no evidence that temperatures have risen during > the twentieth century. > <http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/faking-global-warmin > g.html> > <http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/no-warming-trend-in- > raw-surface-temperature-data.html> > > Sea ice remains the same as it has been since 1978, when > satellites first gave us accurate observations of total > ice area > <http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.d > aily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg> > > There is no persuasive theoretical reason to expect > unreasonably strong warming from CO2 emissions, and we > have not in fact actually observed such warming in > recent times. In 2006 the arctic had unusual melting, > but not as much as it melted in 1959, and every arctic > summer since 2006, the ice has been greater than the > last, despite regular loudly announced predictions of > the opposite. In any given year, there is always an > unusual weather event somewhere, some time, but truly > global averages, such as world sea ice, world tropical > storm energy, etc, show no long term pattern, the show > some warm years and some cold years, some warm decades > and some cold decades - the tropical storm energy shows > pretty much the same non pattern as global sea ice. > > Twentieth century temperatures are warmer than most of > the last two thousand years, cooler than the Medieval > climatic optimum, and cooler than most of the last ten > thousand years. The climate gets cooler, it gets warmer, > it gets cooler again. In recent decades, when most of > the CO2 was released, there has not been much change. > Climate change is indeed real, in that the climate is > usually changing. Bur climate change right now is not > real, or at least not real enough to be measurable, in > that it is not clear whether over the last few decades > the world has been getting cooler or warmer, or, as the > sea ice would suggest, staying quite unusually constant. > In another hundred years or so, it will be easier to say > whether things were getting cooler or warmer in our > time. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
