pete,
Think about it. When Hansen first gave evidence to a hushed Senate Committee, a rise of 15ft and more in sea level was posited. (It wasn't really evidence - it was a computer projection - but aren't computers always right?) Senators don't know things like GIGO. Anyway it got outstanding publicity and politicians love to wallow in photo-ops. Over the years the projected sea rise was gradually reduced to about 10 centimeters. So,where the heck do you get 10 meters? More than 30 ft rise! Someone has been trying to frighten you - perhaps your "vast majority". Hansen, the instigator of this nonsense, has now changed his mind. He feels that CO2 isn't the major problem - the most pressing problem is methane. This means we can now keep warm in the winter, but we had better cut back on meat eating. Some years ago, I suggested that the Amazon rain forest should be destroyed. The rain forest is a termite ecology and there are a lot of termites in 2.5 million acres. And the principal gas given of by this multitude of termites is methane. So, for the sake of our future, we should destroy the rain forests as the termites are mostly responsible for GW. I found a long time ago on radio (and more so on television) that satire, irony, and the rest don't go down well with the masses. Either, the fanatics grab hold of it and pretty soon we have earnest people campaigning to destroy the rain forests - or, it's whispered around that Pollard must be stopped because he wants to destroy the rain forests on which we depend for our very existence. But, perhaps I shall never learn. Thirty years ago, there was a global climatological meeting to discuss climate change. Scientists came from around the world with evidence. There was agreement. We were one sixth of the way toward the next Ice Age. I'll repeat that, pete. We were one sixth of the way toward the next Ice Age. So, in about 25 years, the fear of cooling was replaced by the fear of warming. Now you know why GW enthusiasts lately make their base for measuring temperatures - the 70's! Another low temperature point was at the end of the 19th century - again a good base to measure from if you want to get excited about a rise and you need to pad out your propaganda. And sure enough, that became the first base for PROVING an increase in temperature over a century. When Hansen first opened up the can of worms called global warming, I checked National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, reputed to have the best records of temperature in the world. Their temperature readings of the US showed no changes over the last hundred years. Temperatures vary all the time, so I suppose they work with trends, but apparently there was no discernable upward trend. That looked to me pretty good evidence that Hansen's computer read outs were indeed GIGO. I suppose, pete, you checked contrary evidence before coming to a conclusion. In fact, did you check any evidence before leaping on the GW bandwagon - or did you accept what you were told? Anyway, this non-existent problem soon had people anxious to do something about it. So, we eventually got to the Kyoto Protocols. Of course Bush is naughty for standing against Kyoto. Practically everyone is Europe is angry at Bush's attitude to Kyoto - well, practically all the politicians. But, then, you would expect that from a Republican President. Check that silly woman's propaganda rant we discussed a few days ago. But Bush needed to do nothing. The Senate, on whose backs rest decisions about foreign treaties, turned down Kyoto 95-0. Of course, the Senate are in the pay of the oil companies. As are the more than 19,000 scientists and engineers who signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocols. Contrast this with the few hundred political scientists (most of them not climatologists) who find adoration from true believers and who become stars of television and radio talk shows - AND WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN KEEPING THE NONSENSE GOING. They are not in the pay of the oil companies, are they? So they must be right. Schneider, who with Hansen, originally pushed the GW nonsense (he got in first with the book title "Global Warming") chided the mass of scientists for being jealous because they were stuck at their benches instead of enjoying the glamorous attention of the media. Schneider appears to be more honest than the rest. At the height of the scare, he said 'twenty years ago we knew nothing about the affect of clouds on climate - we know nothing about clouds now'. Apparently, the computer simulations were unable to include the influence of clouds - which are perhaps the single most important component of climate change. But, of course, pete, you know all this because you got it from the "vast majority of the people who actually study and know something about this topic". Actually, not very many - but who's counting? Certainly, nowhere near 19,000. What few there are seem to be pretty quiet. I wonder if the events of September 11th have driven them away to look for another piece of Pop Dread about which they can wax eloquent. Of course you know this, pete. You get it from the vast majority. You know, for example, that satellite measurements over the last three decades show a tiny drop in temperature? You know also that those measurements have been challenged. The tiny decay in the orbits of satellites might well have given a false reading. You know too, that challenge has been challenged. Yes, you know all these things because the "vast majority" keep you up-to-date. But not to worry. As you say, pete, we can solve the problems of GW easily enough. All we have to do is change the "consciousness of the mass of humanity to the understanding that 1) it could truly be that our actions have caused this and 2) that it is easily within the power of our actions to affect the outcome if we act concertedly". You take Africa, I'll take France. I like Paris, which I'll make my base for changing the consciousness of the French people. You can find me in Montmartre. Check the cafes. Harry -------------------------------------------------------------------------- pete wrote: >On Fri. Jan 18, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >According to BBC Radio news this morning (based on an article in the > >current issue of "Science"), the ice in West Antarctica is becoming > >thicker "thus allaying fears of global warming". > > > >The last time there was demonstrable global warming (at the end of the > >last Ice Age about 10,000 years ago) 10 million square kilometres of land > >(equivalent to South America and the US combined) were flooded and now > >lie under the sea. The odds are still in favour of global cooling rather > >than warming. > >sez Hoo? That'll be big news to the vast majority of the people who >actually study and know something about this topic. > > > Thus our descendents are more likely to experience a massive gain > >in land surface rather than loss. But, as a lot of land would be covered > >with glaciers, this scenario would be a great deal more serious > >economically than the one produced by global warming doomsters. > >An increase in snow cover will be moot if it is due (as is likely) >to warmer temperatures, which mean warmer seas in the neighbourhood >of the ice shelves. In fact, if the ice over the sea melts away >while more snow piles up on the neighbouring land, the extra weight >will simply increase the speed with which the ice falls into the ocean. > > >As I suggested before, I humbly maintain that the jury is still out on > >this > >one and we need more evidence yet before panicky (and quite insufficient) > >measures are taken -- as promoted mainly by European Union bureaucrats > >who want to demonstrate to the world just how far-seeing they are. > >Maybe they just have the good sense to realize that a ten metre rise in >sea level will cost billions in their backyard, nevermind the >humanitariam catastrophe among the poor in distant lands. So perhaps >a little caution now is infinitely more prudent than sitting around >saying "I think it probably won't happen, (even though I know very >little about the subtlety of the issue), so I think we should wait >and do nothing until it is far too late, because doing something might >cause me some sort of mild inconvenience". So far the only people >besides yourself that I've heard denying the link between fossil fuels >and global warming are all in the business of making money from >fossil fuel, either directly or indirectly. > >The main battle is going to be in changing the consciousness of >the mass of humanity to the understanding that 1) it could truly >be that our actions have caused this and 2) that it is easily >within the power of our actions to affect the outcome if we >act concertedly. But only if we start very soon. By the time >we get enough hard evidence to convince the conservative skeptics, >it will be too late to avoid substantial upheaval. > >-Pete Vincent ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
