oh my, i just got back on for a few minutes before
going off line. where to start.
lets see. becouse we were wrong once we assume we'll
be wrong again. no, actually i read research that the
media has been going in cycles of predicting some dire
catastrphe every 25 years or so since 1800's so no no
because we were wrong once, but because we have been
wrong time after time after time. who knows this time
the doom and gloom may be right, but, if history
repeats, it will not be.
now peter, i could say that the list of 367 scientist
that is the largest list thaT HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED BY
THE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CROWD is 367 so called
experts bought off by money and politics just as you
say the same about the 500 referred to in the Hudson
institute research, but it would not be a legitament
point for either of us to inpune the motives of the
scientist on either side of this debate.
now back to the largest list opf scientist on the
man-made side being 367. 367... 500 err, i think the
mention of thousands will have to drop a few zeros,
and i am afraid that a 5th grade math teacher would
mark the 90% thing with a big red mark, you don't
remember the exact numbers becouse the exact numbers
are not out there with substantial backing.
lets see someone mentioned venus to support the
contintion that humans are exaserbating the natral
warming cycles we are going through, so let me mention
Mars. mars is experincing melting polar ice and
plantary warming. as far as i know there are no humans
working up there with coal fired plants and driving
suburbans put out by GM mars division. maybe those
aliens that deri and linda are using to poke fun at my
sources are driving them and have the plants belching
smoke that somehow we don't see from here. poking fun
at those who diagree with ones position is a tired old
tactic. i don't buy into those post as being actual
points. Grinns here too.
lets see, the question is am i buying fred singers
opinion becouse of his book. no actually the 500
scientist and there peer reviewd publishications
referred to by the Hudson institutes research is what
i am relying on to state that there is really no
consensus, but rather one side trying to ramrod an
opinion by saying there is consensus over and over
hoping to silence the other side.
if i missed anybody, i am sorry. i did not intend to
miss you.
i am off now.
cheers -:)
--- Peter Hunsberger <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> On 9/12/07, ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > well linda, for us old guys; we remember erring
> about
> > every 25 years or so. in the 80's we were facing
> > catastopic ice age fear. i remember a few friends
> an i
> > planning a trip to belize to buy land becouse all
> of
> > canada and the norther u.s. was going to be frozen
> > tundra and the south was going to be like the
> midwest.
> > the great climate was going to be central america.
> > we'd have went and i'd have property in belize if
> our
> > got had not got murdered on a trip down to
> paradise
> > before he got to our trip.
>
> So basically your argument here equates to "we were
> wrong once, so
> there's no point in worrying this time"?
>
> 25 years ago the best computer models couldn't keep
> track of yearly
> temperature fluctuations over a grid of anything
> less than a couple of
> 1000 miles, today the models are about 5000 times
> more powerful (in a
> number of dimensions). 25 years ago we didn't have
> the temperature
> data of the last 25 years. 25 years ago a very small
> number of
> crackpots wrote about the potential for a new ice
> age, now we have
> 1000's of climate scientists telling us mankind has
> affected the
> global climate.
>
> Big differences. Feel free to ignore them, but most
> of human kind is
> finally waking up to the fact that we need to do
> something about this.
>
> >
> > i think those who think we'll destroy the planet
> gives
> > man too much credit for power that we just don't
> have.
> >
>
> Mankind doesn't need to destroy the planet in order
> to severely screw
> things up. Mankind has all the power he needs to
> affect weather
> patterns, which can in turn destroy entire economies
> and social
> systems. The planet will survive, mankind on the
> other hand will have
> severe difficulties if we continue on our current
> path.
>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
>
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
