Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doc Bones who wrote (58155)	11/21/2002 7:09:46 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bill, A scientist concluded that industrialization would cause global warming around 1880; he didn't even have an Apple II. It's not that difficult, more CO2 means it gets warmer. That would be Arrhenius. See longman.co.uk for example. The funny thing is, the general theory of the greenhouse effect holds across a lot wider range of conditions than the current earth's climate. Science is no match for current Republican orthodoxy, though.

To: Doc Bones who wrote (58155)	11/21/2002 10:23:17 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Obviously weather is a complex system, and it's difficult to say with certainty what will happen. It certainly is, Doc. I am not going to get into a numbers game with you. "Been there, done that, got the T Shirt." Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," is the latest in a series of books that gives a refutation of the "Litany" chanted by the alcolytes of the "Environmental Religion." Here is a good review of the controversy over it. reason.com Looking out your window does not give you a rundown of the upper air temperatures, and those are the ones that really refute the "Global Warming" scenario. The Computer Models also tend to distort the effect of increased cloud cooling, etc, and even the most determined defenders of it are now opting for the lowest numbers in their predicted increase. Here is an outtake from an article on the subject. >>>>>>Take for instance the cooling trend in the lower five miles of the atmosphere, detected by weather balloons, and independently confirmed by NASA's orbiting satellites. This data, gathered from all over the globe, through precise microwave and radio measurements, shows an average drop of 0.19ºF in air temperature since 1979. The National Academy of Sciences finds this cooling trend, which conflicts with the global warming hypothesis, "so pronounced as to be difficult to explain." Most media reports ignore the evidence for cooling and focus instead on records from land stations, which indicate a 1°F increase in surface temperatures during the 20th century. What they fail to report is that this increase was measured mostly in and around urban centers, and therefore indicates urban, not global, warming. Also left unreported is the fact that 90 percent of this 1°F urban warming occurred before 1940. If carbon dioxide emitted by industries and cars was causing this warming, should not most of the increase in temperature have occurred after 1940, when industries and cars became more plentiful and, consequently, carbon emissions increased significantly? Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age.<<<<<<<<< aynrand.org As I said, a very complicated subject, and one that will continue to generate more heat than light. My main objection to Gore was this issue. Glad you enjoyed the pictures. I am heading out tonight for what should be a great evening of Lindy with a new local swing band.

To: Doc Bones who wrote (58155)	11/22/2002 7:41:22 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 281500

Re The lobbyists who are assuring us that global warming is not scientifically proven, are the same people who assured us for decades that there is no scientific proof that smoking is harmful to your health, or addicting. Very true. Doc, you might be interested to hear that LindyBill believes those lobbyists. We engaged in a most interesting conversation here last month. Here are some links: Message 18118955 Message 18119010 Message 18106766 Message 18118976