Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: What the evidence shows on Global Warming

Expand Messages
  • patneuman2000
    ... Gregson, Please review the evidence that was presented by the All-star panel of climate experts in Washington DC on 15 June 2004 (below). Then tell us what
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Gregson Vaux wrote:
      > At this stage of the game, anthropogenic global warming
      > is really more of a fad than a proven fact. When you look
      > at the evidence, it is pretty weak.

      Gregson,

      Please review the evidence that was presented by the All-star panel
      of climate experts in Washington DC on 15 June 2004 (below).

      Then tell us what you think about global warming.

      AAAS All-star panel of climate experts, 15 June 2004
      http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0616climate.shtml

      Excerpt:
      The scientists at Tuesday's climate conference acknowledged that
      questions remain about climate-forecasting models. And, they said,
      there will always be uncertainty about exactly what may happen and
      precisely how various factors exert an influence. However, the
      panelists also agreed that accurate predictions can be made over the
      long term--and that greenhouse gases released as a result of human
      activity are a major change agent. In fact, they said, the models are
      more likely making conservative predictions rather than generous ones.

      -----------------
      Presentations at:
      http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0603climate2.shtml

      Don Kennedy, Science and Alan Leshner, CEO AAAS
      Sherwood Rowland, University of California, Irvine
      Thomas Crowley, Duke University
      Richard Alley, Pennsylvania State University
      Daniel Schrag, Harvard University
      Jerry Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research
      David Battisti, University of Washington
      Joyce Penner, University of Michigan
      Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
      Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University
      Chris Field, Carnegie Institution of Washington
      --------------------------

      Pat Neuman
      Chanhassen, MN
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/


      ---------- Forwarded Message ---------------
      --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Gregson Vaux" <gvaux@m...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Scientists are just as likely to jump on bandwagons as any other
      > group of people. I'm not sure if anyone really knows what exactly
      > makes a fact a fact and this is covered under the annoying (but
      > important) philosophical field of epistemology. A lot of people
      will
      > agree that a scientific fact is proven when it is tested by an
      > experiment but we have no ability to run experiments on the earth
      and
      > if we want to call our converting fossil fuels into clouds of CO2
      an
      > experiment, then the results are confounded by the number of
      > variables. At this stage of the game, anthropogenic global warming
      is
      > really more of a fad than a proven fact. When you look at the
      > evidence, it is pretty weak. In no way am I saying that manmade CO2
      > has not caused global warming but we also cannot say that it has.
      >
      > The earth sure seems to have warmed in the past few decades but
      don't
      > forget that we are coming out of an ice age. Just a few thousand
      > years ago, large portions of North America were covered by
      permanant
      > glaciers and these glaciers melted long before people started
      burning
      > fossil fuels. The jury really is still out on whether burning
      fossil
      > fuels has caused the climatic changes that we are seeing. I think
      > that there are good arguments that we have cause the warming but I
      > also think that there are good arguments that we haven't.
      >
      > In science, it is hard to distinguish between facts and fads.
      >
      > Gregson Vaux
      >
      > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Pat N self only"
      > <npat1@j...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Thousands Gather for U.N. Conference on Global Warming
      > > BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Dec 6, 2004 AP
      > >
      > > Excerpt
      > > -------
      > > "Last month, the intergovernmental Arctic Council announced
      findings
      > > that higher temperatures in the Arctic are melting sea ice,
      buckling
      > > roads and threatening polar bears and other animals.
      > >
      > > In Argentina, a 220-foot (66-meter) wall of ice sheared off the
      > giant
      > > Perito Moreno glacier last March in a rare spectacle some have
      > > attributed to global warming.
      > >
      > > However, disagreements abound in the scientific community over
      > global
      > > climate change.
      > >
      > > John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in
      > > Huntsville, says the Earth's temperature has fluctuated
      considerably
      > > over long periods of time.
      > >
      > > "The evidence shows that the world is warming, but is not warming
      > at a
      > > rate that is catastrophic," Christy said.
      > > -----------------------------------------
      > >
      > > My conclusions
      > > --------------
      > > The statement that "Disagreements abound in the scientific
      > community over global climate change" is false. The majority of
      > scientists are in agreement that a rapid rate of global warming is
      > being driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the
      > atmosphere from fossil fuels used for power and transportation.
      > >
      > > The statement by John Cristy is false. Scientists have shown an
      > enormous amount of evidence that earth's climate is warming at a
      > catastrophic rate. Sea ice, glaciers, permafrost, oceans, global-
      > atmospheric, and my own regional studies of Upper Midwest climate
      > data are powerful evidence that catastrophic global warming is
      > occurring.
      > >
      > > My regional studies of Upper Midwest climate data are:
      > > - 1. Minnesota Temperatures & Dewpoints (Apr 2003)
      > > - 2. Snowmelt & Dewpoints in MN, WI, and ND (Sep 2003)
      > > http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_change.htm
      > >
      > > Pat Neuman
      > > Hydrologist (self only)
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
      > >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.