The article indicated the earth had been in a cooling cycle for the past 10 years, yet during this same period glaciers and the ice sheets of the north and south poles have decreased significantly form meltdowns. The formation of the glaciers and building of the ice sheets in the arctic and antarctic circles of earth took hundreds of thousand, even millions of years to occur, yet they have melted significantly over the past twenty to thirty years, and seem to be melting at an exponential rate.
These meltdowns are occurring to rapidly to fit normal warming and cooling cycles. The ice is melting almost as if it has been microwaved from the inside out, or at least evenly throughout ice deeps of miles. Historic warming and cooling cycles do not explain the sudden and rapid melting of ice occurring today, which is historically unprecedented. Regards, LelandJ Michael Madigan wrote: > Climate changes is caused by the sun. Solar activity > runs in cycles. Solar activity reached a peak, now we > will see years of cooling. Only Al Gore has to worry > we're he's going to steal his next million from. > > > > --- "Leland F. Jackson, CPA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> If CO2 is not causing global warming, and the >> climate is in fact >> cooling; rather than spending time and money on >> congressional hearing, >> it would be better to find the cause/effect >> relationship as to why our >> glaciers are melting, and the environments in the >> colder regions of >> planet earth, like the north and south poles, are >> changing. The effects >> that something is going terribly wrong can be seen >> everywhere, and we >> best get busy and find the cause of it, so as to >> address the problem, if >> in fact, it is something that could be controlled by >> human intervention. >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> >> Michael Madigan wrote: >> >>> There now needs to be a congressional hearings on >>> >> who >> >>> is making money on this total scam and have any >>> >> laws >> >>> been broken. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html > >>> >>> >>>> --- >>>> Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way >>>> >> anyway, >> >>>> more robust than was >>>> assumed in the climate models?" >>>> >>>> Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings >>>> >> actually >> >>>> aren't being disputed by >>>> the meteorological community. They're having >>>> >> trouble >> >>>> digesting the findings, >>>> they're acknowledging the findings, they're >>>> acknowledging that the data from >>>> NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models >>>> >> predict, >> >>>> and I think they're >>>> about to recognise that the models really do need >>>> >> to >> >>>> be overhauled and that >>>> when they are overhauled they will probably show >>>> greatly reduced future >>>> warming projected as a consequence of carbon >>>> dioxide." >>>> >>>> Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like >>>> >> the >> >>>> implications of this >>>> could be considerable ..." >>>> >>>> Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy >>>> implications are enormous. >>>> The meteorological community at the moment is >>>> >> really >> >>>> just coming to terms >>>> with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and >>>> (climate scientist) Roy >>>> Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is >>>> published, his work is >>>> accepted, but I think people are still in shock >>>> >> at >> >>>> this point." >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> A great many founts of authority, from the Royal >>>> Society to the UN, most >>>> heads of government along with countless captains >>>> >> of >> >>>> industry, learned >>>> professors, commentators and journalists will be >>>> profoundly embarrassed. Let >>>> us hope it is a prolonged and chastening >>>> >> experience. >> >>>> With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people >>>> >> the >> >>>> fog of millennial gloom >>>> will lift, at least until attention turns to the >>>> prospect of the next ice >>>> age. Among the better educated, the sceptical >>>> >> cast >> >>>> of mind that is the basis >>>> of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. >>>> The delusion that by >>>> recycling and catching public transport we can >>>> >> help >> >>>> save the planet will >>>> quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense >>>> >> it >> >>>> was all along. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> What The Age decided to spare its readers was the >>>> following: "Well-meaning >>>> intellectual movements, from communism to >>>> post-structuralism, have a poor >>>> history of absorbing inconvenient fact or >>>> >> challenges >> >>>> to fundamental >>>> precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good >>>> indicators on the >>>> environment, though they have become extremely >>>> >> rare >> >>>> now. It is tempting to >>>> the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest >>>> bleak scenario because it >>>> fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing >>>> cultural pessimism. The >>>> imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is >>>> >> always >> >>>> at the end of an era. >>>> But we should be asking, or expecting others to >>>> >> ask, >> >>>> for the provenance of >>>> the data, the assumptions fed into the computer >>>> model, the response of the >>>> peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is >>>> intellectually delicious, >>>> even thrilling, but the matter before us is too >>>> serious for mere >>>> self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if >>>> >> the >> >>>> environmental movement >>>> degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. >>>> >> (Faith, >> >>>> ungrounded certainty, >>>> is no virtue.)" >>>> >>>> The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else >>>> >> in >> >>>> The Age's version of >>>> the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian >>>> McEwan 2008" and there is >>>> no acknowledgment of editing by The Age. >>>> >>>> Why did the paper decide to offer its readers >>>> >> McEwan >> >>>> lite? Was he, I wonder, >>>> consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice >>>> irony that The Age chose to >>>> delete the line about ideologues not being very >>>> >> good >> >>>> at "absorbing >>>> inconvenient fact"? >>>> --- >>>> >>>> The free traders have similarly bastardized >>>> >> Smith's >> >>>> famous "Invisible Hand" >>>> passage, twisting it to say "that which was no >>>> >> part >> >>>> of [its] intention"... >>>> >>>> It's not what's said, but what is left out, or >>>> silently redacted, that >>>> reveals the truth behind the lie. >>>> >>>> - Bob >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > === message truncated === > > > [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.
