A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
the world."

On 7/17/2012 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
the world."


well duh.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:57:58 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
the world."

AlGore overly simple? Who wudda thunk?

Leon wrote:
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
made global warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature
oscillations etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The
Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in
"one piece of an extremely complex puzzle that has been
oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."

just proves that you don't f**k with mother nature

On 7/17/2012 3:57 PM, Leon wrote:
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times
than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week,
"and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere
blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations etched
into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely
complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."

A narrow study using data derived from tree rings in sub-arctic Lapland?
Yeah, I'm sure that applies very broadly to the rest of the world.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:57:58 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."

In the past decade, hikers in Switzerland have been discovering
previously unknown paths (and bodies/mummies?) which were hiked during
the Medieval Warm Period, proving that same hypothesis.


That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
the world."

Oversimplified hell. He outright lied about overstating every bit of
data and then -acknowledged- it, saying that people wouldn't act
unless he did so. Farkin' liberal maroons!

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate change
deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it
is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world
has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere blip
when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused
that the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle that has been
oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art

"Artemus" wrote in message ...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate change
deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it
is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world
has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere blip
when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused
that the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle that has been
oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message ...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate change
deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global warming.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it
is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world
has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere blip
when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused
that the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle that has been
oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art




Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation that
tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call it a
political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point in
time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens of times
in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming cycle is
futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger problems to
solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be headed
for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER
in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper
the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been
cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest the
current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the
context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings
over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point in
time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens of
times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming cycle
is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger problems
to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be
headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper that
looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into account many
factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations have confirmed
the predictions, including the role of CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...uating-a-1981-
temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of the
Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut),
and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than today,
and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures may be due
to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981 calculations were able
to predict observations made over the next 30 years, and were based on
the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation ... Yes I know.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER
in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper
the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been
cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest the
current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the
context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings
over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point in
time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens of
times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming cycle
is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger problems
to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be
headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper that
looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into account many
factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations have confirmed
the predictions, including the role of CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...uating-a-1981-
temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of the
Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut),
and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than today,
and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures may be due
to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981 calculations were able
to predict observations made over the next 30 years, and were based on
the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation ... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the data
just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data sets
being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ... or at
least smells like it.

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the reason
has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific certainty to
embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' measures those intent
on destroying the sovereignty of select nations in favor of a world
government would have you believe.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote

Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be headed for
another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.

Perhaps the most interesting ice age speculation would be the greenie
response. What would the politically correct explanation be? And how could
we battle "global cooling"?

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER
in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper
the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been
cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest the
current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the
context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings
over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point in
time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens of
times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming cycle
is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger problems
to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be
headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper that
looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into account many
factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations have confirmed
the predictions, including the role of CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...uating-a-1981-
temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of the
Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut),
and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than today,
and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures may be due
to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981 calculations were able
to predict observations made over the next 30 years, and were based on
the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation ... Yes I know.



Equally remarkable about 1981 is that it is an odd number year.

You can make any figures tell you what you want them to say. We do not
know the reason for climate change or how long it will last of if the
earth is naturally warming up to offset what did 40 years ago to cool
thing off unknowingly. We are going thorough a normal cycle.

That said the current findings and bits of data collected may explain
why the cave man is no longer around. His collection of data indicated
that there should be no more cooking with fire as it added too much to
the global pollution which was on every ones minds back then. They
starved to death trying to save the world. ;~)

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:02:46 -0400, "Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at
comcast dot net wrote:



"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote

Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be headed for
another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.

Perhaps the most interesting ice age speculation would be the greenie
response. What would the politically correct explanation be? And how could
we battle "global cooling"?

Raise taxes.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of
man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was
WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British
newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has
been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest
the current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in
the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations
have confirmed the predictions, including the role of CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...valuating-a-19
81- temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of
the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures
may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981
calculations were able to predict observations made over the next 30
years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation
... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ... or
at least smells like it.

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the reason
has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific certainty to
embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' measures those intent
on destroying the sovereignty of select nations in favor of a world
government would have you believe.

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general idea
that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/18/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of
man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was
WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British
newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has
been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest
the current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in
the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations
have confirmed the predictions, including the role of CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...valuating-a-19
81- temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of
the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures
may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981
calculations were able to predict observations made over the next 30
years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation
... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ... or
at least smells like it.

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the reason
has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific certainty to
embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' measures those intent
on destroying the sovereignty of select nations in favor of a world
government would have you believe.

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general idea
that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...

I agree, and certainly think there is indeed evidence to correlate the
two, but, as a single cause, thus far it is far from sufficient to
overcome my suspicion of political motives and agendas.

Sad world we live in ... one would have thought that ubiquitous, rapid
means of communication could have mitigated the seeds of FUD, but so far
it seems to have increased it exponentially.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Lee Michaels wrote:


"Leon"lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote

Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be headed for
another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.

Perhaps the most interesting ice age speculation would be the greenie
response. What would the politically correct explanation be? And how could
we battle "global cooling"?



Get a UN resolution to ban it.


--
G.W. Ross

It is bad luck to be superstitious.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/18/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly
made climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the
theory of man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the]
climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now,"
the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and
[the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other
articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere
blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature
oscillations etched into tree rings over the past two
millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused that
the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle
that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of
the article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
are doing to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the
observations have confirmed the predictions, including the role of
CO2. http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../evaluating-a-
19 81- temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym
of the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged
temperatures may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable
that 1981 calculations were able to predict observations made over
the next 30 years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really
curious correlation ... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ...
or at least smells like it.

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the
reason has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific
certainty to embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor'
measures those intent on destroying the sovereignty of select
nations in favor of a world government would have you believe.

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general
idea that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...

I agree, and certainly think there is indeed evidence to correlate the
two, but, as a single cause, thus far it is far from sufficient to
overcome my suspicion of political motives and agendas.

Sad world we live in ... one would have thought that ubiquitous, rapid
means of communication could have mitigated the seeds of FUD, but so
far it seems to have increased it exponentially.

I'd bet that the research done at the KNMI around 1980 is free from what
you call FUD. But I have to admit I left Holland a decade before ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER
in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper
the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been
cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest the
current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the
context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings
over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

It was stated that the current drought is worse than the one that happened
back in 1956. What I think they need to do is analyze what happened back in
1956. No matter what the incident, drought, tornados, rainstorms,
hurricanes, they
are always compared to another historical time. I find this very curious,
as many people who today (starting with Dubya) would be blamed for these
conditions were not around in 1956, or maybe were just children. Could it
be possible that they were such evil people that even at that young age,
they were projecting their evil into the stratosphere?

It could happen.

So, every time someone says that the current conditions exceed the
historical record, think back at what was happening in the past historically
at that point. The next thing will be that someone blames George Bush for
the 1956 drought, and then the one in the Dust Bowl of the 30's. And back.
And back. And when we reach a point where there were no records kept, we
can go to ancient tree rings. Logic would say that George Bush was probably
the spawn of Little Forked Tongue, an evil ancient one.

I bet a dollar to a donut hole that George Bush was responsible for the
drought in the early 1300's that wiped out the Anasazi/Pueblo cultures. Or
at least the libs will say so. And his genes had to be around during the
Roman times, too.

Think about it. Some very strange similarities and
correlations..............

Steve

"Leon" wrote:

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
----------------------------------
What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
operation 10 years ago.

Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have a
real out of balance CO2 situation.

It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
addressed.


Lew

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:07:14 -0700, Artemus wrote:

Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.

Indeed. Here's the next paragraph:


The density and width of tree rings shows how warm it was during each
year's growing season, and trees thereby serve as a record of long-term
climate trends.
The density and width of tree rings shows how warm it was during each
year's growing season, and trees thereby serve as a record of long-term
climate trends.
CREDIT: NSF.gov
View full size image

A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of manmade global
warming.

The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last
week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."

That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
the world."

What's Your Actual Age? www.RealAge.com
Take the RealAge Test and find out the actual age of your body.
How to Improve Memory? IQ-150.com/Trial-Offer
1 "Little" Ingredient May Be Secret to Improving Memory. Read More.
"Shocking" 2012 Horoscope www.PremiumAstrology.com
Insert your birthdate & get answers about Past, Present & Future. Free
Ads by Google

"However, the study actually does none of the above. "Our study doesn't
go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson,
a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a
co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature
Climate Change. The tree rings do help fill in a piece of Earth's
complicated climate puzzle, he said. However, it is climate change
deniers who seem to have misconstrued the bigger picture"

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote in news:ju71od$ge1$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Common sense is a misnomer, what we understand as common sense isn't common
at all - Gerard the janitor

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/18/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of
man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was
WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British
newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has
been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest
the current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in
the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations
have confirmed the predictions, including the role of CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...valuating-a-19
81- temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of
the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures
may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981
calculations were able to predict observations made over the next 30
years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation
... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ... or
at least smells like it.

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the reason
has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific certainty to
embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' measures those intent
on destroying the sovereignty of select nations in favor of a world
government would have you believe.

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general idea
that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...


So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???

The responsibility is every one else's ???

Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
change... ;~)


LOL

On 7/18/2012 1:34 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
----------------------------------
What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
operation 10 years ago.

Which is still a drop in the bucket compared to naturally occurring CO2,
like all those people breathing, even 10 years ago.


Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have a
real out of balance CO2 situation.

That has been going on long becore this all became the latest fad.


It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
addressed.

What exactly is out of balance and what makes you so sure everything is
not headed towards being in balance. Just what are the exact
measurements of "what you thing is out of balance" should we be shooting
for LEW???


Lew

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
On 7/18/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
"Artemus" wrote in message
...

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly
made climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the
theory of man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the]
climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now,"
the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and
[the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other
articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere
blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature
oscillations etched into tree rings over the past two
millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused that
the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle
that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."

Got a link?
Art


Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of
the article doesn't support the part you quoted.
http://www.livescience.com/21624-tre...l-warming.html
Art

Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.

Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
are doing to cause that.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the
observations have confirmed the predictions, including the role of
CO2. http://tinyurl.com/832z88r or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../evaluating-a-
19 81- temperature-projection/

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym
of the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged
temperatures may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable
that 1981 calculations were able to predict observations made over
the next 30 years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really
curious correlation ... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ...
or at least smells like it.

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the
reason has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific
certainty to embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor'
measures those intent on destroying the sovereignty of select
nations in favor of a world government would have you believe.

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general
idea that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...


So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should
be curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener
vehicle???

The responsibility is every one else's ???

Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
change... ;~)


LOL

I know it sounds hypocritical, Leon, and perhaps it is. I like the van,
and I won't ditch it (that has environmentally harmful consequences as
well grin). I also can't really justify a second vehicle for just my
wife and me. So I try to drive as little as possible/convenient, and do
it in a greeny kind of way - no jackrabbit starts etc.

But indeed, I think that industrialized generation of CO2 is NOT a good
thing for the environment (I pay extra to get renewable energy
electricity).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in news:50073ac5$0$8964$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

If there is a human contribution to global warming, it from all the hot
air and flatulence being released by Congress.

Indeed, that doesn't help either ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

On 7/18/12 4:49 PM, Han wrote:
Being an ostrich never helped anyone.


Nor a chicken little.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:11:09 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:07:14 -0700, Artemus wrote:

Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
article doesn't support the part you quoted.

Indeed. Here's the next paragraph:


The density and width of tree rings shows how warm it was during each
year's growing season, and trees thereby serve as a record of long-term
climate trends.
The density and width of tree rings shows how warm it was during each
year's growing season, and trees thereby serve as a record of long-term
climate trends.
CREDIT: NSF.gov
View full size image

A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of manmade global
warming.

The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last
week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."

That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
the world."

What's Your Actual Age? www.RealAge.com
Take the RealAge Test and find out the actual age of your body.
How to Improve Memory? IQ-150.com/Trial-Offer
1 "Little" Ingredient May Be Secret to Improving Memory. Read More.
"Shocking" 2012 Horoscope www.PremiumAstrology.com
Insert your birthdate & get answers about Past, Present & Future. Free
Ads by Google

"However, the study actually does none of the above. "Our study doesn't
go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson,
a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a
co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature
Climate Change. The tree rings do help fill in a piece of Earth's
complicated climate puzzle, he said. However, it is climate change
deniers who seem to have misconstrued the bigger picture"

IOW, "Here's how _we_ want you to construe our findings..." rather
than letting people go with the facts. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere allows
more sun light to reach the surface of the earth??? Stronger hurricanes
because there is more warming of the oceans. How is that better???


Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of their
yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better? Maybe the
answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below sea level.
I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in New Orleans who
were warned generation after generation to get the F#@k out of the area
because there are hurricanes every year. That's a big f-n "DUH!" in
anyone's book except those who think other people and the government is
responsible for solving their own problems.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/18/12 7:54 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
And wondering if warming follows increasing C02 or increasing C02
follows warming.


It can be either if you simply manipulate to hockey stick to fit your
agenda.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:55:13 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere allows
more sun light to reach the surface of the earth??? Stronger hurricanes
because there is more warming of the oceans. How is that better???


Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of their
yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better? Maybe the
answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below sea level.
I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in New Orleans who
were warned generation after generation to get the F#@k out of the area
because there are hurricanes every year. That's a big f-n "DUH!" in
anyone's book except those who think other people and the government is
responsible for solving their own problems.

When barges are seen going by *above* people's heads, it tell me that it's not
where I want to live. Then there's Holland.

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:55:13 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere allows
more sun light to reach the surface of the earth??? Stronger
hurricanes because there is more warming of the oceans. How is that
better???


Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of their
yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better? Maybe the
answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below sea level.
I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in New Orleans
who were warned generation after generation to get the F#@k out of the
area because there are hurricanes every year. That's a big f-n "DUH!"
in anyone's book except those who think other people and the
government is responsible for solving their own problems.

When barges are seen going by *above* people's heads, it tell me that
it's not where I want to live. Then there's Holland.

Indeed. There is Holland. Where they (mostly, but not always) manage to
keep the water where it is useful. Look up Wageningen on a map. It is
more or less in the middle of the country, on an arm of the Rhine. Where
I grew up the elevation was 66ft above normalized sealevel, at the foot
of Wageningen Mountain (el 166ft, no kidding!). A lot is being spent,
and has been spent to keep water in place, and it is really not unusual
to see ships/boats come by at higher levels than the land. Years ago
there was danger of flooding from exceptionally high river water levels,
and some areas were flooded (can't find reference right away). My Dad
inquired what would happen if the Rhine dike would fail, and was informed
that much of Wageningen would get at least wet feet, if not more.
However the flood would stop some 150 yards from his house ...

Wageningen will celebrate 750 years as a "city" next June ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Richard wrote in news:BL-dnb_92OMd-
:

On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:

So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???


Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

We'll be mining asteroids for the mierals pretty soon, and all (ahem)
pollution will occur outside Earth's atmosphere.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

...and further wondering that why it is that now, warming follows CO2
when the record shows that it has *always* led CO2. That "science"
has always escaped me. Of course then there is that "heat island"
thing. ...and the outright lies by the "scientists" who are profiting
from "global warming". Nah, nothing about the "science" to be
concerned about.

Well, there is a "re" in research ...

That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least as
skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing, absolutely
nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are generating CO2 by
burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to be logical to conclude
that that CO2 is at least contributing to the roughly doubled quantity of
CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2 could be at least one factor in
the global warming process.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- wrote in news:ju7shm$9i6$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

On 7/18/12 4:49 PM, Han wrote:
Being an ostrich never helped anyone.


Nor a chicken little.

You sound like my wife. That's a compliment, Mike!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
:

Part of the question is, assuming the globe is warming, on a global
scale is that even a problem? In historical times there have been
times that the globe was warmer than it is now, and it was not a
problem before.

Chicken little says it very well could be a problem. There is a lot of
mass here, and a little warming is easily absorbed. The question may be
whether there is a tipping point, and where that is. Little ice ages and
warmer periods have occurred regularly (Pinatubo eruption had a small but
measurable effect). The real Cassandras say that if the arctic thaws, so
much methane may get released from frozen hydrates that we will get big
warming on a global scale. Etc, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global warming),
a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would be a good thing.

That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps no
problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already. If there is
going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be less of a summertime
reservoir of water (it will have run off the mountains before spring is
finished).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:


That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least
as skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing,
absolutely nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are
generating CO2 by burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to
be logical to conclude that that CO2 is at least contributing to the
roughly doubled quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2
could be at least one factor in the global warming process.

Well - if we hadn't plugged up all those damned holes in the ozone layer,
all of that excess CO2 would still just be harmlessly escaping off into
space...

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least
as skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing,
absolutely nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are
generating CO2 by burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to
be logical to conclude that that CO2 is at least contributing to the
roughly doubled quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2
could be at least one factor in the global warming process.

Well - if we hadn't plugged up all those damned holes in the ozone
layer, all of that excess CO2 would still just be harmlessly escaping
off into space...

grin

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid