Are they known knowns or known unknowns? :-)
1. Yes, indisputably.
2. Or cooling or neither. There are quite serious fluctuations. In
Roman times, sea levels in the Mediterranean were lower and the
Saharan climate quite mild. In Shakespearean times, there was what is
sometimes referred to as a mini-Ice Age - the Thames froze over every
year. Those were two solid cold spells within the natural cycle, the
first lasting 2-300 years and the second about 80 as I recall. The
earth may be slipping into a short warm spell - these are short
swings, not as you imply, long term gradual trends. Anyway, are you
prepared to take the chance?
3. Well, der. We have an historical record of Ozone, Radon, Neon and
just about every other gas in the air too.
4. Yup, crude ones going back about about 2-300,000 years - seen the
CO2 numbers?
5. Let's stew on #5 if it appears to prove a point? Do we have
reliable CO2 numbers for the years PRECEEDING 1800 BCE (Industrial
Revolution and all that)? What exactly does 'APPEARS' mean anyway?
I'd really rather stew on the fact that there is a direct correlation
between CO2 rise and warming trend. Of course that proves nothing.
Strictly, you can't prove that smoking CAUSES lung cancer, a fact
that the tobacco industry used to their advantage for years. But does
anyone now really doubt that? Of course, in fifty years we may find
it amusing after we discover that the cancers were caused by Coca
Cola or pickled cabbage or whatever but... As the guy who proposed
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism demonstated, correlation is a tricky tool
- he showed that global warming is inversely correlated to the drop
in the number of traditional pirates.
As to Al Gore...as I pointed out in the review I did of the film, he
is the wrong person for that job. He seems a nice enough lad compared
to most murkin politicians but approximately 50% of Americans will
decline to believe him, simply because of who he is. Ironically, if
the same message was delivered by a reputable scientist, they simply
wouldn't hear it. And I don't give a damn if he taps directly into
the national grid to power his hobbies, barbecues his steaks over an
inferno of burning truck tyres, makes more money than Bill Gates out
of being a Green Messiah, has sex with small furry animals before or
after shooting them or personally raises the the CO2 levels by
several thousand tons a year due to an exclusive diet of beans - none
of that casual hypocrisy has ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the message.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 21/06/2008, at 12:11 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> My issue with the Global Warming argument is that we have a set of
> knowns:
>
> 1. Carbon-Dioxide emittions CAN cause the conditions that
> contribute to
> global warming.
> 2. The earth is gradually warming
> 3. We have a historical record of CO2 in the air
> 4. We have a historical record of global temeratures
> 5. The increase of global temperatures appears to PROCEED the
> increase in
> CO2.
>
> Let us stew on point #5 for a minute..
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|