Re: Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction

In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
: Bryan wrote:

:> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
:> : Bryan wrote:
:> 
:> :> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/07/25/state2018EDT0172.DTL
:> :> 
:> :> from the site:
:> :> 
:> :> One leading researcher at the weeklong conference said it was "ludicrous" that the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge the increasing dangers of greenhouse gases. 
:> :> 
:> :> "The voluntary measures the administration is proposing are going to get us nowhere," Raymond Bradley said Friday. Bradley is the director of the University of Massachusetts' Climate System Research Center at Amherst, Mass. 
:> :> 
:> :> "Right now, we have good, strong scientific evidence supported by the vast majority of scientists who studied the problem to say we are facing a serious problem," he told The Associated Press on Friday. 
:> :> 
:> :> end of quote
:> :> 
:> :> . . .but it isn't real, just ask Mikey
:> 
:> : Wrong again, Garrrrry!
:> 
:> : Global warming is very real. The part we don't know is real is 
:> : whether humans are playing any significant role in it, and whether 
:> : cutting back on fossil fuel use would make any difference.
:> 
:> : You see, the whole global warming scenario is predicated on a 
:> : false premise. The enviro-kooks who rant and rave about global 
:> : warming are living under the delusion that the Earth's climate is 
:> : a constant except for any changes caused by man. That's just plain 
:> : wrong. The Earth's climate is quite variable and often swings 
:> : between temperature extremes. The climate has been warming 
:> : steadily since the end of the last ice age. The warming started 
:> : before humans began burning fossil fuels, and if it follows the 
:> : trends of the past, then it is going to get a lot hotter on Earth 
:> : in the future, even if we completely stopped burning fossil fuels 
:> : today.
:> 
:> Funny how the ice core project shows that there were wild swings in climate
:> temperature until  about 10,000 years ago when it became more stable than 
:> anytime previous. . .

: Where the fuck do you get that lie from?

Funny how you snipped the link. . hmmmm. . .
http://www.secretsoftheice.org/icecore/studies.html

From a climatologist speaking on a special on the ice core project. . .

 Where do you get the 
: "more stable than any time previous" bullshit from?i

The graph I linked to. .. the swings in temperature were far more radical then
in the last 10,000 years . . .an odd occurance that the climotologist pointed 
out. . . the mean temperature is much more stable, but that would mean you ]
would have to agree with me and facts which won't happen. . .

 The page you 
: reference below doesn't say that. The graph on that page clearly 
: shows the Earth's temperature going up sharply at the end of the 
: last Ice Age 10000 years ago. The data though doesn't even go back 
: beyond the last ice age. Even so, that graph clearly shows that 
: the climate of the Earth is quite unstable *now* and was as much 
: as 5 degrees C warmer than it is now only a few thousand years 
: ago. Going to try to blame that on humans?

We're talking averages over time. . .even a child can see a more stable 
temperature over the last 10,000 years from the ice core data. . .

: Try picking a larger slice of time. Look at previous interglacial 
: periods. Look at the fact that Earth has been warmer than it is 
: today for most of its history. Look at the real cause of the 
: greenhouse effect that keeps Earth from freezing solid, and has 
: done so without human intervention for billions of years.

: You can start here:

: "The "greenhouse effect"  actually is a bit player in global 
: climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of 
: the Earth would be minus 18� C). Hamans did not cause the 
: greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to 
: atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise 
: too much.

: Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% 
: of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of 
: the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect 
: (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon 
: dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a 
: global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly 
: proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would 
: have an undetectable effect on global climate."

: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html


:> something to do with the deep sea transport mechanism
:> . . .

: Well that's nice and vague.

Do your own research, idiot. . .here's a start. . .

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/brady/deepwater.pdf

:>in fact, the temperature had been in a slight decline,

: Proof?

Average the graph and you see a slight decline in mean temperatures. . .

:> but don't let
:> facts get in the way of your rant,

: That's the strategy that works for you, is it?

:> you can't prove anything on the internet.
:  > http://www.secretsoftheice.org/icecore/studies.html

: Correction: *You* can't prove anything on the internet because you 
: are a total loon who is incapable of citing any material that 
: actually backs up your claims. When you do cite something, you 
: totally misread it.

Of course, this coming from a guy who doesn't think radar can tell distance
and that "massive" only refers to weight. . .I guess you have weight on your 
mind <and ass> 24/7. . .

: --- Snip science fiction reference ---

: --- Snip terrorist fiction reference ---

: Next you'll be parroting that asinine "What would Jesus Drive?" 
: crap. Is there any idiotic band wagon you won't jump on, Garrrrry?

Is there anything you don't knee-jerk oppose? 

Garry