On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > Harry, You said it best yourself. It "may still" .....
Here is the paper on which the article is based. Check the graphs and judge for yourself whether the steady temperatures from 1998-2008 is strong evidence there that is no AGW . http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stock/files/PNAS_Paper_Final_with_figs.pdf > > Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a > "may" and a "possibility" is both expensive and irreponsible. > > What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW and > oil producer puppet as some have implied. In fact, I can assure you, I am > doing more to lower my carbon footprint than almost all here, including that > most rabid AGW propagandists in this forum. And I am doing it voluntarily. > I am set to spend over $50,000 for some biogas, wind and solar systems to > wean myself from my carbon footprint. I dare you to find anyone of the AGW > propagandists in this forum willing to make that level of commitment. Like > I said, going green is sensible if you give people a choice; not force it > down their throats. > So, enough of this AGW propaganda. If you devote as much effort in weaning > yourself from raghead oil than the amount of effort you put into promoting > it, you would have gone a long ways. Everyone doesn't enjoy direct command over their power resources as you do. Most people have to act "collectively" through their government to effect change. Harry > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:09 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > >> I guess a true global temperature would >> be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising? >> >> Harry >> >> >
