http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm



Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
property in Wyoming.

;-)

Bill

--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.

H. P. Lovecraft


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-3, 02/23/2007
Tested on: 2/25/2007 1:08:22 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Bill in Detroit wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm



Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
property in Wyoming.

;-)

Bill


http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/res...ge_and_sea_lev
el/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm

Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)


I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
comment on it.
I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
Powerpoint, but much nicer.)

I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
So...

A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
know.

What I _do_ know, is that as stewards of our planet we suck. I have
always believed we're irresponsible. I have done a few things, which
if we all did would help, like CFL bulbs. I only use water-based
lacquers now as they are pretty good now. I keep my cars in tune.
Just little bits here and there.---- I'm no tree-hugger, hate tofu.
But I don't hate tofu as much as the 300 pound pig with the cigarette
dangling from its yap, climbing out of a Hummer, parked in the invalid
zone without a permit.

But that's a whole different story.

On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)


I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
comment on it.
I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
Powerpoint, but much nicer.)

I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
So...

What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected. But that's a
different topic. (http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm)


A lot of it sounds plausible, to me. But.. is it just another way to
spread fear? Is it Gore's 'terrists' fear mongering? I simply do not
know.


Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
"evidence of global warming". More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming. Hotter summers than
normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Feb 25, 4:38 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:



On Feb 25, 2:08 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

See what happens when you don't have Al Gore and the associated earth
worshipers around to warn you. (BTW, does anyone know what the CAFE
average was for cars 14,200 years ago?)

I decided that I should at least watch the Gore movie if I was to
comment on it.
I'm sure many of us here have seen it as well.
A couple of things jumped out at me as I watched the movie. An
excellent job at product placement by Apple Inc., where Gore is a
member of the Board of Directors. Gore used the program Keynote, also
by Apple, very well. (Keynote is a presentation program like
Powerpoint, but much nicer.)

I also read several bios on Gore. I'm impressed. This guy is no dummy.
So...

What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected. But that's a
different topic. (http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm)

Ummmm.. that link you provided ends with:

"This election is not an I.Q. test; it is about which candidate has
better judgment. And that is why, despite the media's love affair with
the celluloid image of Al Gore the policy-wonk, it is the affable,
authentic, and sensible Bush who would make the better leader."

Shall I continue?

The bios on Gore, never claimed any stellar academic finishes. His
involvement in many tasks was a clear indicator that he's no dummy.

I'm no huge Gore fan, but he's more than just a wooden face.

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/gore.html

....and nowhere did this particular bio say that he's a brilliant MBA
and military strategist.
In fact there are many things this bio doesn't say.
But he did put on a uniform. Did go to 'Nam.
----compared to what you got as POTUS now, that's not too shabby.

The big questions now are : will he announce his candicay for POTUS at
the Oscars?
Will he wait till he gets drafted?

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:38:10 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


What bios would give that impression? He dropped out of Divinity school
and his undergraduate academic performance was below that of the person
people refer to as the dumbest president we ever elected.

Thank god we only elected him once.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
changing.

-- Mark

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:59:20 +0000, LRod
wrote:


Thank god we only elected him once.


: )

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:


Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
"evidence of global warming". More hurricanes than normal? Global
warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming. Hotter summers than
normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of
a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.


That is very simple.

If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's very
clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
already.

Tim w

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.

Tim w

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.

Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is what,
3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we know what
is "normal"?

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

That is very simple.

If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's
very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
already.

Tim w

Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
period.......Rod

If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's
very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
already.

Tim w

Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
period.......Rod

Rod,

Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
earth in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is
still changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.

But when we're talking about Ross & Scott we're not talking about but a
fraction of a geologic tick of the clock. As I understand it Antartica used
to be a tropical place, back when it was closer to Africa and South America.

In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's weather --
always changing!

Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like ice
shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting. Based on my
googling it appears the only constant is *change*!

Bejeerks! I'm old enough I was taught in elementary school that the earth's
mountains were formed by the "crinkling" of the earth as it "cooled." What
a load of nonsense that is.

AsbestosUnderware=on
When I read the original article I was impressed by how stupid it is to
rebuild a city that is below sea level like New Orleans, New Lousiana, USA.
I love the city; I've marched in Mardi Gras parades there, but IMO it is
stupid to rebuild it. It appears to me the evidence is that NO will be a
whole lot *more* underwater in the next xxxx years.
/
-- Mark

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.

Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is what,
3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we know what
is "normal"?

Okay. we are not looking at a "snapshot of the earth in 1977" That was my
simple point.

Do we know what is normal over geological time-spans? Well yes, we have a
pretty good idea based on ice-cores, sea level changes, fossil records and
the like, but it is a total irrelevance since you and i are not going to
live that long. Global warming is going to happen this century and rapidly.

Tim w

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:24:49 -0500, "Stoutman" .@. wrote:

If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact local
consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict, but it's
very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes across the globe
already.

Tim w

Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
period.......Rod

Rod,

Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.

"unprecedented" and "unprecedented in the few hundred years that
anybody has been paying attention" are two different things.

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:AWpEh.1717$N63.1623@trnddc08...
"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable?

[...]
Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like
ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting.

Because the consequences are mind boggling.

Tim w

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:34:40 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
wrote:

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
earth in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is
still changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.

But when we're talking about Ross & Scott we're not talking about but a
fraction of a geologic tick of the clock. As I understand it Antartica used
to be a tropical place, back when it was closer to Africa and South America.

In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's weather --
always changing!

Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like ice
shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting. Based on my
googling it appears the only constant is *change*!

The reason you should be concerned is that if there is a significant
change in sea level there will be economic consequences for a lot of
people, not all of whom live close to the ocean--flood the ports and
no more Chinese tools or exotic woods until new ports are built.

But being concerned about climate change and trying to fix it with a
possibly ill-considered panic-stricken change in industrial policy are
not the same things.

Bejeerks! I'm old enough I was taught in elementary school that the earth's
mountains were formed by the "crinkling" of the earth as it "cooled." What
a load of nonsense that is.

AsbestosUnderware=on
When I read the original article I was impressed by how stupid it is to
rebuild a city that is below sea level like New Orleans, New Lousiana, USA.
I love the city; I've marched in Mardi Gras parades there, but IMO it is
stupid to rebuild it. It appears to me the evidence is that NO will be a
whole lot *more* underwater in the next xxxx years.
/
-- Mark

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:01:56 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.

Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is what,
3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we know what
is "normal"?

Okay. we are not looking at a "snapshot of the earth in 1977" That was my
simple point.

Do we know what is normal over geological time-spans? Well yes, we have a
pretty good idea based on ice-cores, sea level changes, fossil records and
the like, but it is a total irrelevance since you and i are not going to
live that long. Global warming is going to happen this century and rapidly.

And?

Are you just proclaiming doom and gloom or is somebody supposed to do
something about it?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:04:52 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:AWpEh.1717$N63.1623@trnddc08...
"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable?

[...]
Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like
ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting.

Because the consequences are mind boggling.

If you think a few coastal floods are "mind-boggling" then you need to
get out more.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

"Tim W" wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On 25 Feb 2007 10:40:26 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:


Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of
global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that
no matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited
as "evidence of global warming". More hurricanes than normal?
Global warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming. Hotter summers
than normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal?
Again, evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.


That is very simple.

If the climate stays the same then nothing is messed up. The exact
local consequences of global warming are very difficult to predict,
but it's very clear that there are unprecedented weather extremes
across the globe already.

For the period we have measurements from.

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:01:56 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's
huge ice sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of
the earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is
still changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer
look in the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys
early in the 20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the
20th century which says that we are no witnessing a gradual change
over a long period but a sudden dip in temperatures and a possible
collapse of the sea-born ice sheets.

Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is
what, 3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we
know what is "normal"?

Okay. we are not looking at a "snapshot of the earth in 1977" That was
my simple point.

Do we know what is normal over geological time-spans? Well yes, we
have a pretty good idea based on ice-cores, sea level changes, fossil
records and the like, but it is a total irrelevance since you and i
are not going to live that long. Global warming is going to happen
this century and rapidly.

And?

Are you just proclaiming doom and gloom or is somebody supposed to do
something about it?


Buy property in the Ozarks before the rush!

"Mark Jerde" wrote:

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge
ice sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the
earth in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The
earth is still changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer
look in the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys
early in the 20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the
20th century which says that we are no witnessing a gradual change
over a long period but a sudden dip in temperatures and a possible
collapse of the sea-born ice sheets.

But when we're talking about Ross & Scott we're not talking about but
a fraction of a geologic tick of the clock. As I understand it
Antartica used to be a tropical place, back when it was closer to
Africa and South America.

In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's
weather -- always changing!

Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features
like ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and
melting. Based on my googling it appears the only constant is
*change*!

Bejeerks! I'm old enough I was taught in elementary school that the
earth's mountains were formed by the "crinkling" of the earth as it
"cooled." What a load of nonsense that is.

AsbestosUnderware=on
When I read the original article I was impressed by how stupid it is
to rebuild a city that is below sea level like New Orleans, New
Lousiana, USA. I love the city; I've marched in Mardi Gras parades
there, but IMO it is stupid to rebuild it. It appears to me the
evidence is that NO will be a whole lot *more* underwater in the next
xxxx years. /
-- Mark



And a whole lot more cities to boot.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

Larry Kraus wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

I'd be more impressed if this had not been announced on April Fool's
Day.


How about a couple mo

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...304/5674/1141?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10
&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Antarctica+Key+To+Sudden+S ea+Level+Rise&searchid=1
&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...311/5768/1747?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10
&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Antarctica+Key+To+Sudden+S ea+Level+Rise&searchid=1
&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87


5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

OK

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

Well, sort of

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.
How so?


5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood. The impact
of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
not understood.

So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion with
dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all meteorological
events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin (CO2 production),
penance (drastic reduction of industrial capabilities), and indulgences
(carbon trading). And the high priests of this religion are able to
control the lives of the peasants over whom they hold sway.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87



From your link, "CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning
forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the
atmosphere."

How, pray tell, is this capable of distinguishing between CO2 from
human-caused burning forests and CO2 produced by forest fires induced by
natural causes?

Other questions to ask:
"Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the
CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD."
OK, when and where? Is this a local phenomena, or is this paper making
the claim that starting around 1850, the entire world experienced this
increase?


5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating the
theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
other sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87



From your link, "CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning
forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the
atmosphere."

How, pray tell, is this capable of distinguishing between CO2 from
human-caused burning forests and CO2 produced by forest fires induced
by natural causes?

It isn't. But the major human produced CO2 comes from other fuels and is
likely several orders of magnitude more than forest fires.


Other questions to ask:
"Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as
the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD."
OK, when and where? Is this a local phenomena, or is this paper
making
the claim that starting around 1850, the entire world experienced this
increase?

No idea. Contact the author.



5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.



+----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------+


If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough


+----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

OK

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

Well, sort of

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.
How so?


5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves
plant health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2,
causing CO2 to decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from
understood. The impact of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of
the earth's surface are also not understood.

So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria
over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back
up even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion
with dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all
meteorological events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin
(CO2 production), penance (drastic reduction of industrial
capabilities), and indulgences (carbon trading). And the high priests
of this religion are able to control the lives of the peasants over
whom they hold sway.

While I'm far from being a hysterical eco-acolyte, the facts cited above
ARE facts.




+----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------+


If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough


+----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------+

Lobby Dosser wrote:
Bill in Detroit wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm


Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
property in Wyoming.

;-)

Bill


http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/res...ge_and_sea_lev
el/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm
That's a good start but it maxes out at 6 meters worth of rise. I was
hoping to get a look at the effect of a 61 meter (200 ft) rise. So far,
Google is teasing but not delivering the goods.

Bill

--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.

H. P. Lovecraft


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000717-0, 02/26/2007
Tested on: 2/26/2007 3:14:57 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years", and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2" and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2 while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.




5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge
ice sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable?

[...]
Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like
ice shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting.

Because the consequences are mind boggling.

What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level city,
New Orleans LA USA.

-- Mark

"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:TzAEh.1189$QI4.119@trnddc01...

What I find mind boggling is the decision to rebuild a below sea level
city, New Orleans LA USA.


Or half the country of Holland....

Sort of makes you nostalgic for the Stalinist times when you could uproot
entire populations and transplant them to the wilderness, doesn't it?

"Stoutman" .@. wrote in message
...
Not true at all.......poke around weather records for any locale for the
past 100 years and you will find various extremes at any time
period.......Rod

Rod,

Look up the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'.

Establish that less than a 1 degree increase in a 100 year period results in
any "unprecedented" weather phenomenon......with 365 days in the year and
thousands of locations and many variables (rain, drought, wind, storms,
hurricanes, tornadoes, high and low temps, ice, snow etc.) there are always
records being broken......and always will be. Rod

Damn Republicans caused 6 ice ages and all the global warming in between. I
could be sitting here drinking my beer under 35 feet of ice if it wasn't for
big oil and automakers getting rich for thousands of years. As if that
wasn't enough, they caused volcanic eruptions, because one of those does
more to create GW than humans could possibly do in a million years.

None of this is true now, because they change history and make up new every
week...
Interesting to see what they have added for this month...

Now, back to some wood work talk, please, I'm learning from that, not this
crap...



"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
Bill in Detroit wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm


Just for the fun of it ... does anyone know where I could get a map
showing those new coast lines? I might want to invest in some beachfront
property in Wyoming.

;-)

Bill


http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/res...ge_and_sea_lev
el/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm
That's a good start but it maxes out at 6 meters worth of rise. I was
hoping to get a look at the effect of a 61 meter (200 ft) rise. So far,
Google is teasing but not delivering the goods.

Bill

--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is
worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him
really know what he's talking about.

H. P. Lovecraft


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000717-0, 02/26/2007
Tested on: 2/26/2007 3:14:57 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4422 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4422 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence
would be required to refute this theory?" When everything is
cited as evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute
it, then one needs to start questioning the person postulating the
theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by
other sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

37%

and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2" and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2 while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.

Not that I said that ...




5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.