BS: Climate Change, It's just a con

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Slag
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 02:31 AM

Stringslinger. I agree. Keep the discussions civil, with a modicum of respect. It's fine to disagree but not to be disagreeable. That's for our guests.

Now Stringslinger, your Dirty Dog! (only joking!!!) Consenus can have a powerful effect but in logic it is a fallacy. A majority CAN be wrong. That is one of the shortcomings of a democracy! Members of either party will attest to this!

Yes we can foul our own nest and in some ways we are capable of changing our world in such a way that our life form becomes extinct. Such fouling seems to be the prime destroyer of dominate life forms. The Earth itself will only make it one more footnote in the geologic record.

So, whether Global Warming is a con or not, human pollution can spell the end of humankind and if we are so stupid as to not find a way of safely dealing with our waste, including heat waste, then we are not fit beings for continued existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:41 AM

The hard numbers, unfortunately, do not support the "con" hypothesis.

Here are some from the EPA. Here's their analysis of temperature change (recent).

Here's a discussion of facts and myths on the subject, from 1999.

Here's a discussion of what is and what is not certain in the data to date.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:50 AM

Allen Beattie, you and the rest of these "guests" on Mudcat are corporate shills spreading your propaganda. I don't know what you have to gain by coming on Mudcat with your misinformational data, but I do know that if you call people names such as "brain dead" you have forfeited your right to any credibility whatever.

Reasonable Mudcatters will know that consensus in the majority of those in the scientific community can easilly refute your muddled presentation. You are of course cherry picking data for some political reason probably in defense of corporate malfeasance.

With your belligerance and name calling, you are obviously not interested in serious dialogue on this issue. Shame on you.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: TIA
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:38 AM

"Through the eons there have been tremendous droughts, extreme wet periods, ice ages, air choked with soot and ash, volcanic gases, high oxygen content, low oxygen and so on, all without the help of mankind or Al Gore."

Absolutely true.

But please bear in mind that there have also been repeated mass extinctions in which the dominant varieties of life form (along with up to 90 or so percent of all other genera) have been wiped from the planet - often in association with the "natural" events listed above. In at least one case (early anaerobic microbes), the dominant life form generated as a waste product the very toxin that extinguished it -- oxygen.

Looking to Earth's history for reassurance ain't so reassuring.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Slag
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 03:17 AM

By way of preface, I am against pollution and polluters. The cleaner the air and water the better I like it. I have personally planted hundreds of trees because, I like trees and all trees do for us.

Now, having said that, Global Warming is a great con. Earth's atmosphere is dynamic, always changing. Our climate is driven by the Sun. Period. Through the eons there have been tremendous droughts, extreme wet periods, ice ages, air choked with soot and ash, volcanic gases, high oxygen content, low oxygen and so on, all without the help of mankind or Al Gore. The con is this: set some arbitrary norm as the standard for all of Earth for all time then point to any deviation or fluctuation as evidence that Man is somehow destroying the atmosphere. Point out that all industry, all human activities need to be controlled to prevent such a catastrophe. Now who is wise enough and has the political acumen to exert that control? Why the person who has defined the problem: Al Gore!!! Yup. Vote for Al.

By the way, are you guys back east enjoying your Global Warming this Spring? Too bad about those high fuel bills.

Did you know that the mean surface temperature on Mars has risen? Must be those Rovers we sent up there since only Man can effect Global climate change. Well, I'm gonna put another log on the fire and let the dogs in. I'm cold tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 02:57 AM

When we fix everything, can we keep just the air pollution please? It gives such lovely sunsets!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 01:48 AM

He's born again, is he?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 01:47 AM

John Howard,the Aussie prime minister , helped to sink the Kyoto treaty.

He's now praying for rain as SE. Australia's drought persists.

A new convert?





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 09:18 PM

How Many Scientists do Politicians need
To tell that our Ass is cooked?

The answer, my friend...

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 09:57 AM

"I wonder how Mr. Cooney would have edited the recent draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written and reviewed by 1,000 scientists convened by the World Meteorological Society and the U.N. It concluded that global warming is "unequivocal," that human activity is the main driver, and that "changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent."

I am not out to promote any party, but reading articles like the Cooney one makes me say: Thank goodness the Democrats are back running the House and Senate — because, given its track record, this administration needs to be watched at all times.

But I also say thank goodness for the way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has built a Republican-Democratic coalition in California to blunt climate change. The governor is not only saving the Republican Party from being totally dominated by climate cranks, like Senator James Inhofe, and hacks-for-hire, like Cooney, but he also is creating a bipartisan template for dealing with climate change that will be embraced by Washington as soon as the Bush team is gone. I went out to Sacramento to interview the "Governator" a few weeks ago.

"The debate is over," he said to me. "I mean, how many more thousands and thousands of scientists do we need to say, 'We have done a study that there is global warming"


Full editorial can be found here: "How Many Scientists".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 10:36 PM

BTW, I could find no evidence of that 'journal' being 'peer reviewed'...

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:50 AM

Teribus...Don't deny this was posted by you. Only you could waste you're own time posting something so long, rambling... (282AR)

282AR, if copy and paste is a waste of time, I'd like to know which way you have copied Grossman's post? By retyping?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:15 AM

Following the weblink Peace has posted of the Alexander study/opinion one sees at the upper right corner the clickable logo of MERCK, a very big German pharma company.

It is not so that I disbelieve everything with that logo on principle, but I tend to be a bit cautious and skeptical if I see that logo.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:18 PM

Ah it's actually still at

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/april/climate.htm

and there is a previous article at
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/september/climate.htm

There's a table there.

"A number of sites had to be omitted from some of the analyses due to gaps in the records or the records not being long enough for serial correlation analyses. However, they provided confirmation of the results, but with a smaller degree of assurance."

:-)

"they provided confirmation of the results"

... but only if you already know what the results should be.... :-)

also
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/september/floods.htm


"Disasters are not increasing because of the increase in the frequency of hazards, but due to the increasing vulnerability to hazards. "

:-)

"The increase in vulnerability to disasters in many developing countries of Africa arises from the following repetitive sequence. Growing population - increasing utilisation of natural resources - collapse of natural ecosystems - hunger and malnutrition - migration to the cities - unplanned occupation of high risk peri-urban areas - few employment opportunities, and rising crime rate as a means of survival - breakdown of civil administration - political instability.
These symptoms are present in many African countries. "

Occam's Razor would generate - just too many people... :-)

There is also a list of references that are interesting too.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:09 PM

Thanks, Peace,

I too object to anonymous w*ankers just stumbling in here and doing a net-dump of plagiarised stuff that has no source or attribution, as if that in itself somehow makes it more believable... I am not as gullible as they take me for, and definitely not as gullible as they apparently are...

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:25 PM

"RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con"

If it is, cui bono?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:25 PM

Here's the web link.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 06:56 AM

So can you give us the web link please?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:11 PM

>>Your dead right Alan, ignore the smart asses above, wannabe intellects.
There is no evidence to support the view that climate change could cause appreciable environmental damage or increase the frequency and magnitude of floods and droughts in South Africa within the foreseeable future. On the contrary, the beneficial consequences of increased global warming will be greater than the adverse effects.

In the 1940s DF Kokot, a civil engineer in the then Department of Irrigation undertook a comprehensive study to determine whether or not there had been recent climatic changes that could have had an effect on rainfall and river flow. The results of his study were published in 1948 in a 160-page Irrigation Department memoir titled An investigation into evidence bearing on recent climatic changes over southern Africa. It contained 418 references, including reports by early travellers and missionaries.
He discounted many of the theories that had been advanced for climate changes. He noted for example, that an elaborate theory had been built up to connect known climatic changes with assumed changes in the percentage of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, but he remained sceptical.

His final conclusion was: The rainfall record is too short to be of much value in disclosing rainfall trends. It shows, however, that if we take South Africa as a whole there is little evidence of any change. Whilst rainfall in some areas seems to have diminished, in others it appears to have increased.
Today, more than 50 years later his conclusions remain valid. There is still no concrete evidence of large-scale adverse effects of climate change on the environment in South Africa. This observation on its own, is sufficient to demonstrate that future adverse changes are unlikely.

Nevertheless, within the last three decades South African and international climatologists have become increasingly concerned about the possible damaging effects of global warming on the environment. More researchers have spent more money on climate change research than in any other research activity. Dire predictions have been made over the years but few have been fulfilled. The emphasis has now shifted from changes in the average conditions to changes in the extreme conditions, which are even more difficult to demonstrate - or to refute. Both the USA and Russia have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which requires signatories to take action to control greenhouse gas emissions. Practitioners who would have to implement any measures to counter the undesirable effects, are waiting for solid evidence of changes taking place before reacting to them. A stalemate position has been reached.

However, the issue is too important to ignore. Climate change predictions will continue to have no practical meaning until such time as credible numerical linkages have been established between climatic processes and hydrometeorological responses on a catchment scale. The systems are far too complex to permit the establishment of these relationships theoretically.

There is a way out of this difficulty that has not yet been attempted by South African researchers. It is generally agreed that global warming has been present for many decades and is increasing. If this is so, then the signals should be present in long hydrological and meteorological records.

This is a time series analysis problem, but there are differences of opinion relating to the appropriate statistical methodology. The basic reason for the difficulty is that the signals are not always regular and are often very faint. Those who denigrate graphical methods as being 'subjective' are unable to detect the changes by direct mathematical analysis, and then assume that they are not there. Efficient time series analysis therefore has to be carried out in two stages - the graphical analyses to determine the presence or absence of the characteristics, and mathematical analyses to determine their strengths and relationships.

With this objective and methodology in mind, I assembled the largest and most comprehensive set of meteorological and hydrological data yet analysed in South Africa. It consisted of a total of 11 804 years of data from 183 gauged sites and eight processes: open-water surface evaporation, concurrent rainfall, areal rainfall, dam inflow, river flow, flood peak maxima, ground water levels, and the southern oscillation index.

A surprising result, in that it had not previously been reported by others, was that the mean annual rainfall over South Africa has increased steadily from 497 mm at the beginning of the record in 1921 through to 543 mm at the end of the record in 1999. This is a substantial increase and is in close agreement with the 10% increase reported for the USA since 1910. There were corresponding increases in river flow, open-water surface evaporation and ground water levels. As open water surface evaporation is a function of solar radiation, air temperature and wind, all at water surface, this identifies global warming as the probable cause of the increases in evaporation, and consequently rainfall, river flow and groundwater levels as well. There were no indications of increases in the severity and magnitude of droughts and floods.

The conclusion must be that additional global warming will have a greater beneficial effect than detrimental effect on the natural environment. This is directly contrary to current views by South African climatologists and environmental scientists.

It is unlikely that any other data sets or calculation methods will lead to different conclusions.
Data

All the data used in the analyses were from the official databases operated by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, and the South African Weather Service. The data were not smoothed, filtered or otherwise manipulated before or during the analyses.
Confirmation

1. The general view of climatologists is that global warming has been present for many decades and is increasing.
2. There is also a general, but not unanimous view that global warming increases rainfall.
3. My studies based on the largest database yet assembled in South Africa, demonstrated that open water surface evaporation is increasing. This is consistent with an increase in air temperature attributable to global warming.
4. My studies also demonstrated that the rainfall, river flow and groundwater levels are increasing. This is consistent with reported increases in rainfall associated with global warming.
5. There was no discernable evidence of increases in floods and droughts. However, this is inconclusive due to the large natural variability of these phenomena. It does indicate, however, that if such increases are present, they will not have any practical significance.
6. Most importantly, there is no credible evidence of large scale increasing damage to the environment that can be attributed to global warming. This is despite the claims of many climatologists and environmental scientists that global warming will cause environmental damage.
7. The general conclusion, therefore, is that global warming has not caused any environmental damage in South Africa in the past, and that future increases in global warming are more likely to be beneficial than damaging.
It is appreciated that these conclusions are contrary to widely held beliefs as expressed in research activities, funding and reports to government departments and other institutions. Nevertheless the analyses and conclusions are soundly based. The results are from different processes at different sites hundreds of kilometres apart and located in different climatic regions. The conclusions are also consistent with international studies that show concurrent increases in rainfall with global warming.

I have presented the methodology and conclusions at three conferences and discussion groups, and have had extensive email correspondence with professional colleagues and others during the past year. Although there are some differences of opinion, to date nobody has challenged my conclusions when using the same data set, nor, as far as I am aware, has anybody in South Africa undertaken similar or parallel studies on this subject. General interest articles have already been published and formal papers containing details of the study are in the pipeline.<<

Teribus, please, in the future have the decency to use your own moniker. Don't deny this was posted by you. Only you could waste you're own time posting something so long, rambling, and pointless and totally failing to understand that nobody is going to read it much less believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 02:11 PM

"RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con"

Fancy folk have climate. Me, I just got weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

Okay, I just thought about it. And I looked up a few things.

Mount St. Helens is one of a large number of volcanoes around this planet. In 1980, it became active and erupted. But every few years around the earth a volcano erupts similarly. In fact, almost any day of the week, somewhere (and often in several places) a volcano is out-gassing. Add to this the almost constant submarine volcanic activity (e.g., "black smokers") in areas such as the mid-Atlantic trench and the almost constant activity on the Hawaiian Islands, Iceland, Sicily, and Indonesia. This has been going on for billions of years and the eruption of St. Helens was just part of the earth's "business as usual."

In 2005, carbon emissions from anthropogenic (caused by human activity) burning of fossil fuels climbed to a record high of 7.9 billion tons. In the year 1980, it was closer to 6 billion tons. Compared to that, the St. Helens eruption was a minor blip.

Where did you get that "50+ years of CO2" figure? Source, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

I saw the program,

The program was very interesting and the arguments very well structured and thought out.

Climate change blame allocation is over used as an excuse to tax or sell alternative products.

Mount St. Helens put 50+ years of CO2 into the atmosphere - think about it...

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:34 AM

Well, I meant fastest, but I'll live with that typo... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:18 AM

The biggest single, and festest single growing plague on the planet is Mankind - sooner or later... CHOMP!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:12 PM

If I was the climate/planet and I had to tolerate human kind I would want rid of em'..So try this, the climate/planet has had enough of the human race destroying me...So, there ..I have spoken on behalf of the climate/planet and its basic'ly going to get rid of us before we get rid of it....

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:12 PM

Well, for those who are biased to believe that it is a scam, who cares about Al Gore?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:52 PM

And if global warming turns out to be a scam, what will become of Al Gore's political career?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:14 AM

In 50 years time, I'll be past 100, so why should I care, then...

And I suppose I'll be well past it too then...

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Vulgar Boatman
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM

Lox, they should also wait until their assertions have been subjected to peer review...meanwhile I'll just get the pigs refuelled and ready for flight.
KYBTTS

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:58 AM

Glaciers have retreated worldwide...but if you turn around backwards you could say that they are moving forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:51 AM

"The world will be here long after us"

And that will be getting closer all the time the more we push the limits - what will be here after us CURRENT life forms will not as easily support our type of life...

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:48 PM

Link here to the "pi = 3" story.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:43 PM

'some State' didn't want THEIR kids to have to deal with 3.14159265358979323846. I can't see their problem, myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:39 PM

Some State in the US tried to get that through their Legislature (pi = 3). Must be SOME truth in it. And, I kno for fact that the sun doesn't rise in the west. I stayed up for 24 hours watching a movie back in the 1960s, and it's on film: The sun rises in the north. It SETS in the west. FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Bainbo
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:36 PM

...and it would be interesting to find out who was funding these renegade scientists. Oil companies, by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

You can always find one renegade 'scientist' who will write a paper swearing that pi=3 and the sun rises in the West....and now that we have the internet/WWW, we can see his claims repeated thousands of times.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Bainbo
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:16 PM

The danger with a programme like the ITV one is that it gives justification to people who were always reluctant to make sacrifices to try to offset climate change.

Our neighbours - who've just traded in their car for a bigger one - have told us: "Global warming is a myth. It was dreamed up under Thatcher." (Clever one, that. Believing in global warming gives credence to the Wicked Witch, and who'd want to do that?).

I can guess where that "fact" came from. Although, if it was all a Thatcherite plot, it doesn't explain how Al Gore got so fired up about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM

It's a paraphrase from Mark Twain talking about cats.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:01 PM

Priceless Utah!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 06:56 PM

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time, and it annoys the pig" Utah Phillips.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Lox
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

I haven't read any proof of anything from anyone in that whole thread. Just lots of assertions and claims of credibility.

If Alan Beattie, Duplin Dave, Grossman etc wish (wishes?) to be perceived as a scientist he should do what scientists do and attach references to the points he makes, and direct us to his fabulous archive of revolutionary "data" that supports his case so conclusively.

Till that happens, the claims made above constitute little more than an addition to the already excessive production of CO2 and Methane.

What is this insistence on producing hot air.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:29 PM

Gee, Alan, what is you non-scientific contribution about the temperature of the oceans? I really like eating salmon. They're more important to me than oil or tax deductions. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain the effects of fire retardents.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:15 PM

Businesses that voluntarily adopt clean, environmnentally friendly practices generally find that they wind up saving money by doing so.

And on an individual basis, my friend paid a bit more for his Prius a couple of years ago than he would have on a conventional automobile, but since then, he's more than made it back in savings on gasoline and maintenance.

It's just the intelligent thing to do on many levels.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

"George Bush has the right attitude towards them and the waste of space mouthpieces who he ignores regarding Americas use of oil."

If you are going to be so snobby, use the correct word: It's 'whom'.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:07 PM

Well, thanks for telling us your real point--DON'T RAISE MY TAXES.   It's fairly obvious that dear Duplin Dave and Alan Beattie are against any policy which might possibly raise their costs--regardless of the benefit to the rest of the world.

I've seen this before--often--on the WSJ editorial page.

"Science" is just a smokescreen.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: GUEST,Duplin Dave
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

At the end of the day we all have to live. We need oil and all of the other resources of the earth. All this talk about saving the planet is cobblers. The world will be here long after us and these bloody rants from old hippies and social bores will amount to nothing only higher taxes. George Bush has the right attitude towards them and the waste of space mouthpieces who he ignores regarding Americas use of oil. Keep up the good work Mr. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 11:50 AM

On a side but related note: Has anyone wondered how the ice thinning and melting will affect drilling for oil in the not too distant future? Already the thick, firm ice forms later than it did and becomes unstable earlier- in its natural progression how will that affect the ice roads?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: Bee
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 10:38 AM

I have previously posted links to climate change impact happening right now in the Arctic. Arctic peoples have long memories: they are not 'making stuff up', they know the history of their way of life. How people like the OP can blithely side-step reality while spouting off about 'findings' by a minority of scientists, all the while ignoring the present experience of real people is beyond my comprehension. Even the big oil corporations are beginning to clue in - guess they have children too.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:32 AM

When the sunspots disappeared for 70 years at the turn of the 1600/1700s, there was a 'mini-ice-age' - the Thames froze, among many other symptoms.

We know there are many factors affecting our climate that we cannot control - I find it hilarious that those who think of themselves as "conservative" want to weld the accelerator flat to the floor while we are speeding thru a mountain pass road covered in thick fog, unaware if the road turns and we will go flying off the edge to our doom...

The ignorant pseudo scientific posting technical mumbo jumbo they don't understand, to the ignorant uneducated who are incapable of analysing the faults with it, is no basis for sane and rational scientific debate.

Come see the madness inherent in the system!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate Change, It's just a con
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:14 AM

We really shouldn't believe our own eyes for we are not bright enough to know what we are looking at.We should believe all those unknown "scientists" who are telling us that we can pour millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere forever with no consequences. How come they never mention the year with no summer? 1815, a killing frost all through the summer. It was believed to have been caused by the eruption of a volcano which threw up many cubic miles of dirt that blocked the sun's rays for a couple of years.

There is no question that the earth is warming. There is no question that it is a natural phase of the earth's life. What some don't see is that we are speeding it up to the point where our grand children will pay the piper for our foolishness.

"It's hard to make a man believe when his income depends on his DISbelief." (Upton Sinclair)