Sorry, Harry, I do think we are at odds here. I'm not expert on matters like global temperature change, but I have talked to people who are, and they are concerned.
Ed > > Ed, > > Here they go again. > > "a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen > sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years." > > No doubt by an impartial group like Greenpeace - but they forgot to say > who. Not so with the contradictory study. > > "In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, > partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute . . . " > > By golly! > > The un-attributed "study" was in any event completely propaganda. After 35 > years of cooling in mid-century, in the upper 70's there was a sudden > change upward. Could have been an earth wobble, or something equally > dramatic - or it could have been that everyone took up smoking in 1977 and > this impacted the atmosphere's CO2 content. > > Or maybe the termites in the rain forests took Viagra, produced a lot of > queens, and let off methane in enormous quantities. > > Anyway, the temperature increase from the upper 70's was particularly > abrupt. Might that cause the Global Warmers to wonder a little? Not a > chance. They pin their hypothesis on to a change in the human production of > 5.5 Gigatonnes of CO2 as it attaches itself to the 750 Gigatonnes already > present in the atmosphere. These are the figures I accept - others are > similar but make the same point. > > Harry > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Ed Weick wrote: > > >The New York Times reports that the US Environmental Protection Agencys > >report on the state of the environment has been severely edited by the > >White House to make things seem better than they may actually be: > >"The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming > >is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and > >tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems. > >Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution > >to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council > >that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed > >in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a > >1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the > >previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, > >administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed > >by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion." > > > >The whole NYT article is at: > ><http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html?th>http://www.nytim es.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html?th > > > >Ed Weick > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
