NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12251

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 3.4 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!john
From: [e-mail] (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:54:04 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Lines: 62

Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dale Cook) writes:
]>]>]In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dale Cook) writes:
]>]>]>Nobody in science seriously doubts that global warming is happening.
]>]>
]
]OK. I admit it again (as in a previous post) - I overstated the claim.
That was the point. Actually, many in the earth sciences field (including
my father), doubt global warming.
]
]>Yes, they dispute that. Ballard has doubts about the theory, but his
]>overall view seems to be: that there will be some anthropogenic
]>CO2-induced warming; That it will be at the lower edge of the range
]>predicted by the models; that it will be beneficial - increasing crop
]>growth, and causing harsh climates to moderate slightly.
]
]He seems to be a believer in global warming to me, not a doubter.  A
]conservative believer, but a believer nonetheless.
No, he is not a believer. He is very dubious of most global warming
science, but his best guess (far different from "belief") is that
there will be some.
]
]None of which I argue with.  My original intent was to state that the bulk
]of the debate centers largely on why it is happening and who or what is
]causing it, as well as if we need to worry about it, not whether it exists.

No, the bulk of the debate is on whether anthropogenic effects WILL cause
global warming - as predicted by global models. There are few (VERY few)
who argue that the record for the last 100 years supports ANY global
warming hypothesis!
]
]>a scientific/political issue called "global warming." This thing
]>is a result of global climate models. It presumes that increasing
]>CO2 (which NO ONE disputes) will cause temperature increases. The political
]
]Increasing CO2 exerts a warming influence on the system.  It does not
]necessarily cause temperature increases.  That depends on a lot of variables.
]A nit, perhaps, but this thread has turned pretty nitpicky lately.
Well, now you are getting closer to the SCIENCE of the thing.
]
]>aspects of it claim:
]>  -global warming is happening
]>  -it is man made and a result of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" including
]>   CFC's
]>  -it is harmful (or catastrophic)
]>  -we should immediately do something about it
]>
]>I have shown that THIS thing that we call "global warming" is indeed
]>doubted by reputable scientists.
]
]THIS thing you call global warming was not what I meant.

Fine, but you need to define your terms. This is a POLITICAL talk group
and thus I assumed that you were referring to the political subject of
global warming.

--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
[e-mail] ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz![e-mail]
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -