[Fair Use: For Education and Research Purpose Only] link: www.lineone.net/express/00/02/14/news/n2740icecap-d.html

Icecap flood fears 'unfounded' BY MICHAEL HANLON SCIENCE EDITOR CLAIMS that global warming will melt polar ice caps and flood much of Britain have been wildly exaggerated, according to researchers in Australia. They say sea level rise in the next 100 years will amount to "a few tens of centimetres" at the most. Far from shrinking, the polar ice caps could actually increase in size, as higher temperatures lead to increased snowfall, claims the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre.

Using computer models, researchers have calculated the most likely effect of warming on existing ice sheets. They concluded that even if some of the floating ice sheets were to melt completely, it would have little effect on sea levels.

The scientists say that if global warming continues, a sea level rise of one or two metres could be expected "in the next few thousand years". A CRC statement said: "In the shorter term - that is, over the next century or two - it is expected that there will be relatively little melting of the ice-sheets."

A recent Climate Impacts Programme, sponsored by the British Government, predicted that sea level would rise by 20 inches in the next 50 years, flooding large areas of low-lying land in southern England.lIceland supermarket chain has blacklisted Hotpoint because the firm refused to supply them with fridge-freezers which more efficiently reduce the rate of global warming. ) Express Newspapers, 2000

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@ebtv.net), February 14, 2000

Answers

Who the hell is MICHAEL HANLON SCIENCE,EDITOR and why should I believe him. Does he know something that thousands of meterologist don't

blah, blah, blah, blah, "wildly exaggerated, according to researchers in Australia. What 'researchers?' why should I believe them.

Listen, Lucy. I have a better idea. Get the hell out of your gas-guzzling SUV. Maybe you'll meet people that way and and GET A LIFE.

Peter

-- Peter Starr (startrak@northcoast.com), February 14, 2000.

Michael hanlon, Science Editor, says: They concluded that even if some of the floating ice sheets were to melt completely, it would have little effect on sea levels.

What a maroon. This guy is a *science editor* and he doesnt know that if ALL the floating ice sheets melted, it wouldn't affect sea level because the ice is already in the ocean occupying the exact same water volume that it will occupy as free water. (try the ice cube in a glass of water trick and you'll see what I mean) It's landbound glaciers melting that would affect sea level rise, along with other factors such as ocean warming (warm water expands).

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), February 14, 2000.

You seem to have the greater problem Peter. This forum is available to both sides of any issue. Why attack the one who presents info? If you have an opposing viewpoint, Let's hear it. If NOT, you have come to the wrong forum.

Tommy

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), February 14, 2000.

Peter I found the article interesting for a different point of view. I am not a scientist and did not say whether I agree with the guy or not. This is a discussion forum and thought this could be of interest to discuss. To personally attack me for someone elses point of view (when you have no idea who I am or what I think) sure looks like attacking the messenger and not the message. You sir may be the one in need of getting a life.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 14, 2000.

A. Ice occupies MORE volume than liquid water. It expands upon freezing.

B. Global warming does NOT exist. So it all moot.

-- Dave (champeaudavid@yahoo.com), February 14, 2000.

Good ol' Pete Starr..ranting again.

I'll see your "thousands of meteorologists" and raise you 18,000 *scientists* who say there is no *global warming* happening as per the criteria of a slow but solid uptrend in global temperatures. As a matter of fact, global temperatures are *decreasing*, ever so slightly. What we are experiencing are effects of a very intense solar cycle, which has created the same havoc to our weather, temperatures and so forth on a regular basis for millenia...on record since the 1700's.

Why don't you get a life, and stop badgering folks. Use all that pent up rage to push the suppressed non-polluting locomotive technologies already in existence instead of whining about people getting out of their SUV's.

Geet Techologies...only one of many.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), February 14, 2000.

--yes, the already floating ice caps melting won't raise the average sea level at all, but the miles deep on the ground anatarctic ice cap melting sure would. Yes, indeedy it would. Glaciers are in full retreat all over the world, the average depth of the ice at the north pole has shrunk to like 40% of what it was 20 years ago, the permafrost is melting. There sure IS going to be some fallout from the change in weather patterns. and I have no idea what it is, either, and NOR do any scientists. Just this years complete and utter failure of modern meteorological supercomputer "models" for even a ONE week look ahead precludes any relying on some huge time frame of years look ahead model. It's bogus science on BOTH sides of the argument. It's lottery speculation. Yes, the earth has natural weather cycles, and yes, humans contribute to it with devastating effect when they attempt to use technology at will, with little or no foresight. Both are true statements. Ice ages come and go, drought patterns change, the sahara used to be heavy forest, there's coal under the ice in antarctica, etc, air pollution over cities is real, acid rain killing trees someplaces is real, volcanoes are real and heavily pollute, big ole cars driving around all the time pollute, jet planes sure as heck pollute a lot, methane gas from decaying plant matter pollutes, yada, yada, and really big WHOOPSIES like the recent cyanide spill happen. All that stuff is real, and there's no way to have, collate or input even a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the data needed to do long range weather modeling, can't be done now, WAY too many variables. You can TRY to do weather modeling, and you will get some results, but results based on man influenced and written algorithms, based on a real dearth of data. That's it. It's advancing, but no way yet is it close to being perfected. Bottom line is neither the ultimate eco warning/doomer albored type "scientists" have a clue,or the rush limbo polly brand "it's all in your head" scientists have a clue, they just like grant money, and they need some sort of reports to justify their "jobs". Computer modeling is just that, it's a "model" it is no more real than a picture of a turkey dinner in a cookbook as it relates to weather. Just because it's a "model" doesn't mean it's carved in stone. Change one single datum, you get a different model, and someone else's software "model", with the exact same data, gives you different results. They won't admit it out loud, but it's the "big time wrestling" of computing. Sure, they should keep plugging away at it, just don't swallow some weather "model" one way or the other as a carved in stone fact, well, just like y2k. No one really knew, and even now it's still weird, should go as an example for everyone, including ME. Ha! The future isn't carved in stone, it's carved in jello, and the wind is always blowing it around, and things have a way of bumping into you jiggling the bowl.

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), February 14, 2000.

"They concluded that even if some of the floating ice sheets were to melt completely, it would have little effect on sea levels."

As already noted by Cash, a floating object displaces its own weight of water. Thus the only information in this statement is that these "researchers" don't know this. In addition, the statement is simply incorrect: when ice floating in water melts, it has no effect whatsoever on the water level in its container (the ocean basins, in this case).

But it would have the effect of reducing the amount of solar energy formerly reflected from the surface of the ice, thereby allowing that energy to warm the water the ice had been covering, and this would act to raise global temperatures to some extent.

I question their competence. And perhaps their objectivity.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 14, 2000.

Thank God for Global warming. I think its arrived just in time to help us deal with the cooling process that had been going on for about 150 years. And if the ice melts the planet will be back to what it was in the begining that being a planet that had a vapour envelope over the surface, and gave us morning dew everyday and no rain, just one lush green house. SO THERE

Justthink.

-- justthinkin com (justthinkin@greenhouse.com), February 14, 2000.

Dave said

A. Ice occupies MORE volume than liquid water. It expands upon freezing.

B. Global warming does NOT exist. So it all moot.

Yes, Dave, ice expands upon feezing  that's why it FLOATS. The roughly ten percent of an iceberg above water represents that expansion. Thus when the iceberg melts, it has no net effect on the volume of water. Proof? Fill glass halfway with water. Float ice cube in the water. Mark water level on side of glass. Go away. Come back when ice cube melts. Water level hasn't changed, unless the dog got into it :-)

As for global warming's existence, OR keeps trotting out his 18,000 * scientists*. Thanks, but I'll listen to the experts who are actually studying the phenomenon, not some some plasma physicist who doesn't have the vaguest idea what he's talking about.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), February 14, 2000.

Actually, I find this somewhat funny. Please note that 50 centimeters equals 20 inches. So, if the 'few tens of centimeters over the next hundred years' (quoting the article) comes up to five (50-centimeters), then the rise in the sea level predicted by the Australian team will be equivalent to that predicted by the British team. Whether it happens within 50 years or a hundred could easily fall within the bounds of error.

BTW, the vast, vast majority of scientist now agree that global warming is a fact. The only question outstanding is the cause. Those of you who continue to argue over the former just need to finally get over it. Update your arguements and marshall your thoughts in support of the 'It-Is-Not-Caused-By-Humans' line of defense.

-- Bugeye (New@Lurker.com), February 14, 2000.

Tom, allow me to re-frame your sentence...

...would have the effect of reducing the amount of solar energy formerly reflected from the surface of the ice, thereby allowing that energy to warm the water the ice had been covering....which would in turn increase the amount of evaporation, causing more clouds, rain, and *cooling* of the atmosphere.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), February 14, 2000.

Cash...plasma physist? Am I missing something here? Care to elucidate?

18,000 scientists sign petition denouncing the global warming theory

Are PEOPLE really causing global climate change?

and one more just for the helluvit...

The Leipzig Declaration, made by 100 of the world's leading climatologists

And for you eco-deep enders (Mr. Starr, etc.) out there, if you have read anything I have previously written, my position is one of we the people taking responsible action to reverse the damage and problems being caused by a serious lack of good stewardship towards our home. In order for that to occur, we must demand the prevalent use of alternative methods of all kinds. We must spend our energies making waves about what is out there RIGHT NOW, ready and available for us to make that happen. These technologies are ours for the taking. It's time to wake up and make use of them. The only ones that lose are the people who are suppressing these technologies in favor of greed and control.

Thank you.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), February 14, 2000.

Bugeye, the definition of global warming is "a slow but steady uptrend in global temperatures as monitored from orbiting satellites". Please, show us the irrefutable data showing this has occurred in the last 30 years.

While you're at it, please reference the following statement you made with proof: "the vast, vast majority of scientists now agree that global warming is a fact"

Nonsense.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), February 14, 2000.

The "vast Majority of Metereologists"can't predict the Weather from 12 to Noon,as seen every Day on the"Weather Channel".

-- jofus (go@get.em), February 14, 2000.

"....which would in turn increase the amount of evaporation, causing more clouds, rain, and *cooling* of the atmosphere."

No doubt this happens too. And the higher albedo of the clouds will emulate the former ice/snow cover to some degree. If no other processes than these two were involved, it would be a self-regulating feed-back cyclee, and global climate would only be changed by a change in the solar constant.

Melting of the floating Arctic ice cap could well have another effect-- altering the convection regimes governing circulation of the major ocean currents, which are major weather drivers.

We know from cores drilled in glaciers and deep sea sediments that global climate has changed many times in the past, occasionally very radically in just a few years. My impression is that the entire process is not yet sufficiently understood. Yet the enormous increase in greenhouse gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can't be ignored. As the "researchers" mentioned in the original post seem to have done.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 14, 2000.

OR

Thank you, I was beginning to think I was the only poster on this forum to have heard of the Leipzig Declaration.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), February 14, 2000.

In regards to the "volume thing"...

Ever try to "quick chill" pop in glass bottles using the freezer? I remember one time a friend forgot to take her bottle out of the freezer, and the bottle exploded...luckily, in the freezer!

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), February 14, 2000.

Mr. Pinochle,

Ah yes, the Leipzig Declaration. This is the declaration cobbled together by so many industry stalwarts, it is like the tobacco company researchers discovering the there is no need to consider nicotine an addictive substance. Here is an authoritative analysis of the signatories of this so-called declaration:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html

An examination [of the declaration] has been undertaken by Danish Broadcasting Company (DR1) journalist, Xjvind Hesselager... In late 1997 he attempted to contact every signatory (82 at the time) to the "Leipzig Declaration." Of 33 European signatories:

- there were four he was unable to locate

-twelve denied having signed, and of these, some had not even heard of the "Leipzig Declaration"

-many signatories were not qualified in fields even remotely related to climate research. They included medical doctors, e.g., H. Metzner; nuclear scientists, e.g., M.J. Higatsberger; and one expert on flying insects, i.e., V. Svidersky

-some signatories had financial ties to the German coal industry or the Government of Kuwait (R. Balling and P. Michaels).

These are hardly reliable authorities on climate research.

Confronted with these facts, Singer removed many from the list, although not the five mentioned by name above (Dr. Metzner apparently played a central role in compiling the list of signatories). Other names were then added to make a total, today, of more than 100.

Of the present signatories:

- twenty-five are TV-meteorologists (here in Denmark, being a TV-meteorologist does not imply any in-depth knowledge of climate research)

-nine do not appear, from the information provided in the published list, to be involved in relevant research

-fourteen claim the title "Professor," but the list gives no indication of their academic speciality or institutional affiliation

-forty-two are listed either as an oceanographer, meteorologist, climatologist, or geophysicist or as the employee of an institution involved with climate research. However, in only a minority of cases is it indicated by the list as currently published (1) whether these individuals are actually doing climate research.

If the IPCC95 Scientific Assessment [which concluded that global warming was indeed a ocurring] represented only 100 scientists, it is unfortunate that the number has been stated to be 2000. However, the scientists who were represented in the IPCC95 Scientific Assessment are among the best qualified individuals to evaluate mechanisms and impacts of potential climate change. This is more than can be said of many, and perhaps most, of those who have signed, or who are supposed to have signed, the "Leipzig Declaration".

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), February 14, 2000.

OR,

The definition of global warming is not delimited by satelite measurements, as you well know. But even given your definition, here is an article that demolishes your contention:

http://www.weathervane.rff.org/features/feature084.html

Irrefutable evidence? Only the Bible can provide that, and only then to those who will hear. The world of science is much more circumspect, as it should be.

-- Bugeye (New@lurker.com), February 15, 2000.

Thank you Bugeye, but you did offer the *irrefutable evidence* (look closely at my previous posting), albeit in favor of my argument, that atmospheric temperatures have not risen, which are at the heart of the global warming theory as postulated many years ago. Lets keep in mind that the only reason global warming is an *ISSUE* at all is the theory that it is not a natural phenomenon, but a manmade one, one that can be stopped or reversed if we humans did.....(fill in the blank)

One cannot prove or disprove global warming (man created) by taking surface temperatures due to the contribution of other factors (as alluded to in the article you sited) which would skew the year to year samplings, rendering them an ineffective gauge.

The article states that most of the surface warming has occurred in the last two decades...even though greenhouse gasses have actually reduced from their peak in the 70's. So, what could it be??? Once again, the original theory of manmade global warming is not substantiated. In the article I did notice the absence of the solar cycle issue that is being discussed in depth by many serious researchers. I also noticed a lack of focus on the earth's natural warming and cooling cycles.

So, you see...I don't discount that we have experienced an increase in surface temperatures that may or may not be permanent...no one can say for sure because the cause is unclear. I can say for sure that man-made global warming IS NOT at hand.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), February 15, 2000.

There seem to be many notions of "global warming", although few discussions explicitly clarify which of such notions is on the table.

Regarding the article which discusses the recent NRC panel report, here's a link to another:

300 years of warming

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), February 15, 2000.

Bugeye,

Arguing with the anti-environmentalists over global warming is like discussing evolution with a Jesuit banker. Every uncertainty in science becomes proof that that you are wrong. Every chemist with a cause becomes their cause. They have huge resources upon which to draw, web sites to deliver, and false claims to support their views. They oppose McCain, and usually parrot the reactionary radio talk show host. Let them rest in their own well-paid misery. Their charade will eventually be seen in its totality, and some will be sent to prison. Ask the tobacco boys.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

The myth of Global Warming has been fully exposed by John Daly and many other reputable climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Have a look at this chart to see what has really been happening to global temperatures.

Or visit this page for a fuller explanation, and to see how well the predictions are matching reality. Then have a close look at Dr Theodor Landscheidt's work to find out what the future holds. There was also a scientific paper published in a british magazine recently which demonstrates climate change over millenium, and shows that far from global warming we are simply in a post ice age period. I cannot find the link at the moment, but when I do find it I shall post it here.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), February 16, 2000.

oops... Looks like I missed most of the address for the chart. However it is available here.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), February 17, 2000.

Malcolm,

Perhaps this link will get the chart:

Link to graphic

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), February 17, 2000.

Ah ... so you believe those "thousands" who signed the UN's self-serving document.

But upon examination - as needed also for the other document - falls apart on closer scrutiny. Those "20,000" - yes - that's what the administration claims, were really about 12,000. And they DID NOT include climatologists, but ANY person who wanted to push the platform of anti-capitalism.....remeber, ONLY the US would be responsible for reducing its economy to meet these goals.

The rest of the world, most especially China and the USSR - can skip all the polution reg's and restrictions....and they are bigger polluters.

Like the Rio de Janerio environmental meeting a while back: the radical environmentalists are hypocrital in their actual actions: the "rules" of the meeting said tehy would recycle everything, but there were no recycling facilities in South America ... (in ALL of South America - there were NO recycling facilities?) ... so they loaded the paper trash aboard airliners and - at the expense of thousands of pounds of irreplaceable fuel and tons of extra pollution in the upper stratosphere, flew the paper and trash to Europe to "recycle"..... where is was dumped anyway, since it wasn't sorted and couldn't be recycled effectively.

---...---...

Evidence of global warming is like y2k-induced failure - the media and administration can claim anything - and have no proof. the more they 'want" to find warming, the more they find. (A lesson all sides here may wish to heed too.) The more the "claim" and "blaim" anything on global warming - the easier it is to declare a "global crisis" and further restrict individual liberties _ AND NATIONAL LIBERTIES - and raise taxes...as is happening now with gas taxes and driving restrictions, the Kyoto protocal, etc.

Don't fear the "black helicopters .... but worry about the "diplomat" and his hired lawyer - with a black suitcase.

---...---...---

A point anybody who claims global warming is occurring DUE TO MAN'S INFLUENCE must address in detail:

Now, we are finding increased evidence of fossilzed human and animal (wooly mammoths, bears, etc.) remains high in the mountains, under ice and snow fields now exposed (the Andes, Greenland, Siberia, and the Alps, etc.)

IF the global warming is actually occuring, and IF it is due to burning coal and oil (at this time) from human activity the past 50 years - just how the heck did these prehistoric people cause the same global warming?

What did they do to cause the ICE AGES, or the recovery from the Ice Ages? (Recovery was only a hort time ago, geologically speaking) - and was characterized by several VERY RAPID up-and-down cycles in temperature ... each of which happened in less than 100 years.)

So, IF global warming is actually happening .. their theory MUST explain how it happened previously, why it happened previously, and WHY these previous occurances ARE NOT happening now.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 17, 2000.

Ah, yes, the folks who espouse the theory of global warming must explain beyond any shadow of doubt in every mind on earth every cyclical change in climate since the earth cooled, every instance of a cooler temperature this year at each point on the planet, and each discrepancy in each atmospheric layer. Proof positive must be furnished.

Here is why: those denigrating Global Warming must not admit to any doubt. If there is any chance that global warming may occur... even a relatively small chance... then the outcome is horrific and we must begin preps TODAY. Since the head-in-sanders can admit no doubt, they demand the enviros play by the same rules - either global warming must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, or it does not, cannot exist.

As someone noted earlier on this thread, science rarely accommodates such exacting specifications, and the enviros need not meet such demands. In order to require SOME action, all that is needed is SOME doubt. In the case of global warming, there is plenty of doubt on both sides. In short, though the anti's would like you to believe that doubt is the theory's disproof, it is indeed the doubt that requires the action.

Ignore the demands of the rich and powerful for certainty, and press forward with your demands for tighter controls on greenhouse emissions.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), February 17, 2000.

Let's see now, when in doubt, be sure to search for implausible notions of causal relationships, select one that will massively disrupt peoples lives if they fall for it, and then run the con for all it's worth. If people happen to notice its implausibility, try to pretend that that is really a reason to fall for the con. It's obviously a desperate ploy, but what the hey?

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), February 17, 2000.

Interesting post, Uhhmmm. Reads like a recap of the Y2K argument of the last couple of years. It leads one, inexorably, to invoking the Precautionary Priciple---which has been stated here approximately as, "If you're right, I'm still prepared. If I'm right, you're hungry and cold." When is 100% proof necessary for anyone to make a decision in consideration of their safety or security? Only when it is comfortable to do so?

Allow me to get one thing out of the way before I return to my point. Orwellian rephrased Tom Casey's argument. Allow me to re-rephrase it. " ...would have the effect of reducing the amount of solar energy formerly reflected from the surface of the ice, thereby allowing that energy to warm the water the ice had been covering....which would in turn increase the amount of evaporation, [strike: "causing more clouds, rain, and *cooling* of the atmosphere." and replace with:] causing an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor being the most efficient greenhouse gas, therefore it would enhance the warming effect in a positive feedback loop.

I know your heart's in the right place, OR, even where we disagree on details. I believe you when you say, "...my position is one of we the people taking responsible action to reverse the damage and problems being caused by a serious lack of good stewardship towards our home." If I thought we were smart enough or sufficiently careful and mindful or humble enough to be good stewards, I would applaud any efforts in that regard. But when you then say, "These technologies are ours for the taking. It's time to wake up and make use of them," it makes me think that you may have too much faith in technology, and in man's ability to structure his world---very close to the sin of hubris, if I may allude to a religious reference.

I acknowledge the importance of technology in maintaining our vaunted civilisation. But, remember what Einstien said: "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." The other (balancing) half of the equation is in developing a perspective of respect for our home, a worldview which can be continually practiced down the generations.

Having been separated for a few thousand years from his natural roots, civilised man, in his vanity, fancies he knows best for himself, even when that diminishes the natural system in which he has evolved and in which he is still inextricably embedded. As long as he considers himself "first" among the creatures of creation, the more he will find himself "last" when it comes to redemption.

"For even as you do unto these, the least of my brethren, you do also unto me," said a great teacher about 2000 years ago. When you consider that all living things on this planet---from the lowliest microbe to the most complex of megafauna---share over one-third of their DNA, it becomes apparent that we are all "my brethren." And, as we treat those others, so too, in the end, will we be treated.

Just as you would be loathe to risk the lives of your children by a cavalier attitude toward their safety, so a rational man should be reluctant about endangering his life-support system while he waits for the last increment of proof of hazard or for the next world-saving technology. This is the fundamental precept of the Precautionary Principle. It is the reason that we have survived all these eons and the reason we are alive today.

-- (First=Last@Last.=First), February 18, 2000.

While some farces get to be humorous, this one seems to be stuck on mere silliness.

There is a reference to "the theory of global warming", not just any old "theory of global warming" but to one of those which leads to "demands for tighter controls on greenhouse emissions". Which, of such possible theories, is left unspecified, and the grounds for the "demands for tighter controls on greenhouse emissions" is also left unspecified.

As such, it would seem like a rather garden variety catastrophic global warming notion as have been bandied about for several years.

But then there are the suggestions that this particular "global warming theory" has some kind (also unspecified) of preponderance of evidence in its favor, so much so that to ask for more is to ask for "100% proof". Well, that would seem to distinguish this one from the run of the mill catastrophic global warming notions, unless the, also unspecified, increment of "proof" is itself 100%.

And the silliness goes on, and on.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), February 18, 2000.

Uhhmmm JFCP81A,

Congrats on being the first Global Warming Polly/Troll. Your type is easy to spot because you argue personalities instead of facts.So intellectually dishonest and really boring.

If the Lipzig Declaration is not acceptable then try the "Heidelberg Appeal". That had 3,082 signatories from 106 countries including 72 Nobel Prize winners. See http//:www.ceednet.org/globalclimate/heidelberg_appeal.htm

Or, you could read the "oregon Petition" signed by over 15,000.But even if you did I am sure your feelings are formed and facts will not change them. After all, Al Gore says there is Global Warming, and you have to be in lockstep with your masters. Have a nice day.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), February 18, 2000.

Can't quite figure out what your attitude from your reply above, Jerry. So, if I'm off-base in this reply - update me please.

The problem (with the radical environmentists and their public in the national media and socialists worldwide) is not in identifying the supposed problem, nor in trying to determine from a huge mass of conflicting data - the symptoms of the problem.

The problem is that they are ASSUMING what the source of the problem is based on their prejudiced view (anti-technology, anti-individualist, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-"people" - as shown vividly in the comment above that seeks to show humans are no better than animals.

... and thus, SHOULD APPARENTLY SUFFER in cold, poverty, hunger and darkness (?) to protect these animals rather than improve their lives by correctly using technology to feed, clothe, shelter and heat themselves. That what this reader is saying - that we should return to the "nature" that kills most children before age 12, where a life expectancy of 30 is unattainable.

And that attitude is accepted (to these people who are feeding themselves - often at taxpayer expense) because "we are no better than animals." The false biblical analogies is meaningless and distracting - He wsa talking about MEN at a banquet, to show how humility and service (stewardship) is required - NOT about the divinely -stated relationship between animals and man. (The "Book" rather explicitly gives MEN responsibility over animals (and by extension, nature itself) to serve men....and thus to use it wisely. (Abuse of nature and its mineral or water reserves is therefore forbidden too!)

---...---

Back to your comments......

IF global warming is occurring, the question is WHY is it occurring, and WHETHER the severe restrictions - THAT ARE ONLY BEING DEMANDED to the US economy by today's environmental socialists - are going to affect the change in temperatures.

IF greenhouse gasses are causing this warming, then these radicals have NOT shown that restricting US power production (by slowing the US economy) will slow the warming.

IF greenhouse gasses are NOT causing the warming, these radicals are refusing to look for other causes. They don't WANT to find other causes - because several their more radical goals include eliminating capitalism and freedom, and returning to a (never-existed) utopian living without technology. (Which mainly consisted of various forms of slow agonizing death by starvation and sickness and exposure, or quick violent death on the African plains.)

And in process of returning to nature, many (most ?) are implicitly (explicity, in the case of the writer above) willing to condemn most humans to death.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 18, 2000.

Robert,

A rough transation of my post about the silliness: common anthopogenic catastrophic global warming scenarios are crocks that don't come close to being sufficiently plausible to be regarded as credible. Along come a couple of posts that suggest that some such crock is so plausible we should turn off our brains and simply believe it. I characterize such suggestions as silly.

Let me include a paragraph from another thread:

OT: Global sea-level rise to flood parts of Tuvalu this weekend

When discussing "global warming", it may be useful to keep in mind that that phrase has become something of a conceptual grab bag, stuffed with hobgoblins for all occasions. For example, some people seem to imagine that global warming will necessarily have castrophic consequences. Some further imagine that global warming is predominantly a function of increases of atmospheric CO2, and to some of them, increases of atmosphereic CO2 = global warming = catastrophe. So, if you have in mind average global temperatures, it may be better to use that phrase than the phrase global warming.

In addition to the issues associated with "global warming" there are questions regarding motives of people who propound some particular related notions. While megalomaniacs, and their fans, often tend to promote schemes which tend to concentratr power in political entities, some unknown number of people who promote such schemes, do so simply because they have been taken in by some part of the con. Since distinguishing the con artists from their victims is often not practical, I prefer to focus on the issues, and to comment on the content of posts rather than on other aspects of people who may also express some of the views contained in such posts.

As for some of the issues, you may find the article at the following link to be of interest:

A review

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), February 18, 2000.