On 14 Sep 2012, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The "evidence" has strong indications of being manipulated for
the purpose of a political agenda.
It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry.
The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed
is the subject of a lot of controversy
Which has been addressed by direct comparison of different sensors.
Of course the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to prove anything,
they just create fake controversy and take advantage of the
provisional nature of all science.
We do not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately
retrodict the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them
in their predictions?.
Because whatever other factors there are it is straightforward to
predict that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures,
something already calculated by Arrhenius in 1890. Burning fossil
fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is
increasing proportionately. Measured temperatures are increasing.
And for all practical purpose we have access to only one planet, (even
with the MWI), so a caution principle makes sense.
Henry Ford (who I do not appreciate as he was quasi-nazy) already
defended doing car with hemp to avoid the risk of making too much CO_2.
Prohibition is responsible, in part, of the climate change, if there
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at