Michael, Don't you understand that one doesn't need pictures from the 1500's or from any period in the past 4 billion years to determine the conditions on our planet? For example, we know that South America and Africa were joined at one time. Also Nova Scotia and England. Tectonic drift accounts for this stuff. We don't need satellite pictures to prove it.
Core samples at the Antarctic are good enough to show climate for the last 2 or 3 thousand years. Scientists can measure CO2 as well as dust and many other gases in the samples. Global warming correlates 99% with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Start reading some real science instead of listening to yourself blather on and on. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Madigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [NF] Is it cold or hot? global warming data > Show me the satelite pictures from the 1500s and let's > compare. > > Doesn't anyone understand that the earth is 4 billion > years old and you can't extract 12 years out of 4 > billion and come up with a trend that's meaningful? > > Didn't anyone take statistics in college? > > > > --- Nicholas Geti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Good one, Ed. >> >> Also he should read something besides flight >> information. The Economist and >> National Geographic are just two sources that cull >> the most interesting >> research info about global warming. Just seeing >> pictures of the North Pole >> taken over the last dozen years from a satellite >> should convince anybody. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ed Leafe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [NF] Is it cold or hot? global warming >> data >> >> >> > On Dec 12, 2007, at 4:57 PM, John Weller wrote: >> > >> >> I'm not anti global warming theories, just >> sceptical which is the >> >> result of >> >> my training in flight trials - don't believe any >> claims >> >> (particularly from a >> >> manufacturer) until they have been proven! >> > >> > You seem to impugn a whole lot of people who have >> done some serious >> > research, yet you fail to mention how the evidence >> they have produced >> > is at all questionable. >> > >> > People get research grants because their work is >> thorough and >> > correct, not because it supports any personal >> theory. If anything, >> > the Big Money would be behind the folks trying to >> pooh-pooh the >> > evidence, because that would help ensure that they >> can continue to do >> > business without being held responsible for their >> effect on others. >> > >> > Also, "proof" is a slippery word. You do know that >> any connection >> > between smoking tobacco and lung cancer, heart >> disease, and all the >> > other bad things currently attributed to smoking >> has never been >> > "proven", right? You do know that atomic theory >> has never been >> > "proven" either, despite the indisputable evidence >> of nuclear bombs? >> > >> > -- Ed Leafe >> > -- http://leafe.com >> > -- http://dabodev.com >> > >> > >> > >> > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
