John Q., thanks for that.
Well...it's probably not advisable to open this discussion on this particular thread, but let's say this: everything you've said is true, and, everything you've said is without meaningful context. This is essentially my gripe with the way that global warming is handled.
Yes, that 75,000,000 bbls/day is a lot of oil, wouldn't want it in my living room and so forth, but the context - next to much higher quantities released naturally - renders the numbers more meaningful, doesn't it?
And when Nova harps that CO2 levels are higher now than 50 years ago, what they don't mention is that they were tenfold higher 10 milion years ago and a hundred fold higher during the Carboniferous Age, or whatever the number is - no context is provided to give us an idea of the scale of fluctuation over history. Anybody can quote a number in a context designed to flabbergast you, and the global warming folks tend to do exactly that, and that's intellectually dishonest. If the earth, in its wobble around equilibrium, can shift mean global temperatures back and forth over 30 Deg. F, than should we really be guilt ridden because we've witnessed 0.5 Deg F, as measured by the newest toy? Not me.
Look, I'll see if I can find a chart of mean average temperature going back through the last few shifts of the earth's magnetic field - that covers a few ice ages - and in the meantime, please don't interpret my comments as meaning that I disbelieve man has any impact on his environment. Of course he does, and sometimes a significant and irresponsible one. I just don't like being scammed by graduate students.
Regards
Aggie |
