Peter, This whole thing reminds me of the days when it was accepted fact that Volvo was the absolute safest car in the world. And Volvo had the "data" to prove their statement - they had millions of miles of driving, traffic accident & fatality data to prove they were way ahead of everyone else.
Then a company did an independent study & found a Volvo to be no safer than any other car the same size. When they uncovered this "fact", they searched further & discovered that the typical Volvo owner was a more conservative driver than a typical owner of the "other brands"! This led to the realization that it was the Volvo driver, not the Volvo that made the Volvo the safest car in the world! That's right, the safest car in the world's safety record had nothing at all to do with the car itself! In other words, Volvo took two completely irrelevant sets of data & associated them because they tracked together. And my point is? You are correct, the evidence is there for anyone to look at, or so it would seem. Or are we correlating two unrelated sets of data? And by the way, you do know that the earth was so warm from 1100 through 1300 that the Vikings were grazing livestock on what now is ice bound Greenland? They abandoned Greenland because the area got too cold to support grazing animals. And I doubt that we were dumping massive quantities of CO2 into the air around 1100! Also, grapes were being grown in Northern Europe until about the same time, when the temperatures got to cold to support grape production. It's also true that today's temperature changes are tracking lock step with increased sun spot activity. So what is the cause? Sun spots? CO2? Cow flatulence? I'm not arguing the fact that we are experiencing global warming. Only that so far, there is no hard link between the temperature changes and any cause, including elevated CO2. And we really don't know where the Earth's temperature is going, how high it will rise, how quickly it will rise or where it will stop. Or maybe it's going to drop???????? Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Frederick Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:14 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Gee, that must explain why sattelite photographs show some much less ice around both poles, eh? As I remember, the warming of the planet has not been in dispute by reputable scientists for going on 30 years now -- there are a few who insist that temperatures at 50,000 ft aren't going up much, but then I don't live there, I live here on the surface. Also not in dispute is that the carbon dioxide content of both air and ocean water is increasing at a rather high rate -- there are fairly accurate numbers going back a couple hundred years, and unless I'm mistaken, the carbon dioxide content is more than double what it was in 1900. All that carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuels -- renewable fuels (wood and buffalo chips, mostly) get re-absorbed into plant growth, more or less, as they would have been anyway through decay of various sorts. The immense quantities of fossil fuel we are blasting through is having an equally immense impact, and no amount of jawboning is gonna change that. Yes, there have been climate changes in the past (for instance, I am quite certain that there was open ocean in the arctic during the 500s AD), but the carbon dioxide level was constant, not climbing. There are quite a few very wealthy institutions with a vested interest blowing a lot of pseudo science around about global warming, mostly so they can justify drilling and selling more oil and cars -- take a step back and use your own knoggin, the evidence is there for anyone to look at. Peter _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
