> Russ wrote:
> What risks?
The risk that there is global warming and that it will change our
environment from ways ranging from unpleasant and/or expensive to
toxic and/or unlivable.
~|
Get the answers you are looking for on the
What about cause and effect? My lord, you'd think we thought we could
do whatever the hell we wanted without any type of repercussions, right?
Sam's claims that "we've always been doing stuff" aside (*gawf*).
It's this whole, lack of common sense, I guess. People insisting on
impossible proofs b
What risks? The magnetic pole reversing, allowing more solar radiation to hit
the ocean and warm the currents? If you say greenhouse gasses, give me a good,
peer reviewed, non-statistical analysis paper showing greenhouse gasses warm
the atmosphere.
>The question is, will it go back or keep g
We are and always have been.
On 8/20/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So ... there's data that says it could be happening, and maybe bad,
> but here's also things that say it may not be (your links). Beyond
> that, if there is GW (meaning not "common cause" variance, but
> "special c
> Sam wrote:
> Two stories:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
>
So ... there's data that says it could be happening, and maybe bad,
but here's also things that say it may not be (your links). Beyond
that, if there is GW (meaning not "common cause" variance, but
"specia
I was thinking glaciers but ok.
Two stories:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007070525352.html
Sharp, who has support
> Sam wrote:
> Can you back any of that up?
>
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Scientific institutes in the U.S. and Japan confirmed yesterday the
Arctic Ocean ice cover has shrunk to the smallest size ever recorded,
prompting a startling prediction from one expert that the world could
witness a total s
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/19/nasa-s-hansen-says-global-warming-skeptics-are-court-jesters-working-
http://tinyurl.com/382w45
On 8/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that the data here is right:
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
>
On 8/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So forget him. 100 years ago there were more glaciers than there are
> now. 100 years ago the North pole was iced over more than now. 100
> years ago Antarctica had more ice pack than now.
Can you back any of that up?
~~~
> Sam wrote:
> Can
> we get a serious scientist to defend this guy?
>
So forget him. 100 years ago there were more glaciers than there are
now. 100 years ago the North pole was iced over more than now. 100
years ago Antarctica had more ice pack than now.
What do we need scientists for? We jus
James Hansen says so.
Funny how he admitted fudging numbers to stress the importance of the
science and people still respect him. Every article I read mentions
specifically that this only covers Americas temperatures yet Hansen
entire argument is that they don't. I find it difficult to take anyone
Given that the data here is right:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
There's definitely a nasty decade-over-decade trend going on and it
don't look pretty.
~|
Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities includ
12 matches
Mail list logo
