On Dec 28, 2007 1:04 PM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on research that has been presented in peer reviewed journals first, 
> long before Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

All lies. Gore and Hanson both admitted they exaggerated to create a
fear so people would take them serious. Is that how science is
supposed to work?

> > > 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
> > suppress his or her work.
> >
> > All "Deniers" are paid for by big oil.
>
> You mean like those deniers who were funded by Exxon and other oil and energy 
> groups? And that sponsorship been well documented. So its more than just a 
> claim.

No, these:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made
Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

> > > 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> > detection.
> >
> > Trust us, we can't prove it, we just know.
>
> You mean like the current rates of arctic ice sheet melting, whose cause is 
> global warming, according to the scientific community's consensus. Or the 
> significant changes in migration rates and times - as documented in Nature. 
> Or the 20 or 30 other indications as has been documented in various wildlife 
> biology journals, etc.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/844

Exploitation of fear by environmental groups was explained well in
Crichton's book, State of Fear. He could also have written a book
titled, State of Knowledge. Most people know very little about the
natural world and how it works. This lack of knowledge is easily
exploited and coupled with fear makes it an even more powerful
manipulative tool. The idea that knowledge is power isn't new, but
that is the positive side.  Lack of knowledge is the negative side and
makes you very vulnerable. As Derek Bok said, "If you think education
is expensive - try ignorance." Ignorance allows presentation of
natural events as unnatural or normal events as abnormal.

Arctic ice conditions are a perfect example. In 2005 we heard that an
area of Arctic ice the size Texas melted more than in 2004. Horrors!
Catastrophe! The polar bears will be dead very soon. But what is the
reality? Well this melt is well within natural variability and a very
small portion of the total annual melt. Every single summer
approximately 10 million square kilometers of ice melts in about 3
months. This is an area equal to the United States. Texas is
approximately 681,089 square kilometers or 6.8% of the total land
area. Suddenly it is not so dramatic. It is even less so in a historic
context. The same scare technique was used in the 1970s. We were told,
"The ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere increased by 12 percent in
1971 - an increase equal to the combined are of England, Italy, and
France. This added ice has remained."

The pattern this year illustrates the cycle. Here, courtesy of the
University of Bremen are ice conditions for April 1, August 8, and
November 29, 2007 respectively. It will take a few minutes to orient
yourself because the arctic ocean is usually a thin line across the
top of the map, something that adds to the lack of understanding.

Notice how much ice has already formed this winter, a more rapid
growth than previously in the record. It was claimed the summer ice
was the smallest on record but the valid record is short coincides
with arrival of satellite data in 1980.

While the media raised alarms over Arctic ice  melt, they did not
report that Antarctic winter sea ice extent was the greatest on
record. A similar pattern of annual freeze and melt occurs in the
ocean around the continent but it changes from a summer minimum of
about 2 million square kilometers to a winter maximum of about 15
million square kilometers for a an annual change of some 13 million
square kilometers.

Of course, all this ice is in the water, so when it melts sea level
doesn't change. So the ice is not disappearing. Annual melt and
refreeze is large, and current situations are well within normal
numbers. The fuss over the ice works because people don't know. But in
case lack of knowledge doesn't work an emotional and guilt trip will
persuade the rest, or at least isolate them as uncaring. Yes, the
polar bears are disappearing with the ice. But the ice isn't
disappearing. Right, and neither are the polar bears. Besides, they
survived much warmer periods when the ice was reduced significantly.
The longest since the last Ice Age was the Holocene Optimum from 9000
to 5000 years ago; the second was the Medieval Warm Period from 900 to
1200 AD, and most recently the warm period of the 1930s and 1940s,
which we now know were warmer than the 1990s in North America despite
what Al Gore says.

As Marie Curie, a worthy winner of two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and
Physics said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be
understood."


> > > 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
> >
> > Disappearing ice caps, random ice core samples and Hurricane Katrina
> > should be proof enough.
>
> Or the hundreds of other data that has been accumulating and published in a 
> variety of reputable journals. Yep them pesky peer reviewed scientific 
> journals just loves them anecdotes. Just can't get enough of them.

See above

> > > 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
> > observation.
> >
> > That is global warming.
>
> Say what? You know that statement even stretches the credulity of the most 
> devout follower of faith based science. Its all very basic stuff, you heat 
> something up and it gets warmer. The evidence is very solid that we're 
> heading up the earth and of course it gets warmer. What new laws of nature 
> are you referring to? I suggest that you stay away from that right-wingnut 
> koolaide, its starting to rot your critical thinking abilities.

That makes no sense.

CO2 has always existed. Adding more to the atmosphere doesn't prove
we're heating the earth it's just a theory. A better theory is water
vapor in the atmosphere. The cause of vapor could be natural or it
could be caused by pollution. But in no way can you prove man is
heating the earth.

The new law I refer to is that man can change earth's climate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to 
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249271
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5

Reply via email to