Ed, This is a correction from an earlier post to get the facts straight and a comment of your suggestion to read more about the global warming issue.
"Southern Ontario probably represents less than 1/1,000th of one percent of the globe (19529 sq km versus 510,065,600 sq km). " Actually 19529 sq km is the surface area of Lake Ontario. Ontario has a total area of 1,076,395 sq km. The Southern Ontario surface represents approximately 15% of Ontario or about 161,500 sq km or less than 1/100th of one percent of the globe. I also read your post http://leafe.com/archives/showMsg/361836 but unfortunately was not able to access the full article "The Physical Science behind Climate Change" in the August 2007 issue of Scientific American. I did however read some of the reports and other material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which the article made reference to. The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Hundreds of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. As a United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of United Nations human development goals. I believe this gives the IPCC a high degree of credibility in the world. I agree that based on the charts the average global temperature has risen 1 degree Celcius over the last roughly 150 years, the average sea level has risen about 150mm (6 inches) over the last 130 years and the northern hemisphere snow cover has been reduced by about 2 million square km over the last 70 years. I don't disagree with this data, but I'm not a scientist so I don't pretend to make a judgment based on this data or any I observe locally. Keep in mind that the data presented is current to 2004-2005. Things may change in the intervening years till now. I'm more of an amateur stock market watcher. If you look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average over roughly the same periods of time (DJIA started in 1896), we can see fluctuations just like in the IPCC reports. If we look at the data in 2004-2005, both look similar. Look at the DJIA in May 2008 to August 2008. We were on the way to increasing prosperity. Everybody was going to be rich or so the media portrayed. Then September 2008 came and October and now November. Everything collapsed. No more everybody is going to be rich. Now, it's can we still go to the grocery store and buy bread and milk? So this is what makes me more of a cynic. Things go up and things go down. So no matter how much you read and observe, there is no absolute in any theory. Be it global warming or stock market richness. Peace, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Ed Leafe > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:37 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] A**hole Gore and his junk "science" whore > > On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Alan Lukachko wrote: > > > Scientific method should take in as large a sample as possible to > > prove or > > disprove a theory. It should also take into consideration time. > > Observations > > can change with time. Since the earth's weather patterns and therefore > > temperatures are constantly changing, I see no practical way of > > proving or > > disproving the theory of global warming. > > > If this was of any interest to you, you could do a little reading on > the subject to learn just how such measurements are carried out, and > you might not be inclined to make such statements. > > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > > [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.
