-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ RonB on Friday 25 Sep 2009 01:12 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> ____/ Homer on Thursday 24 Sep 2009 23:30 : \____
>>
>>> Here's something I don't understand about the Global Warming debate:
>>> Why is there a debate at all?
>>>
>>> Let's assume, for one minute, that the Global Warming denialists are
>>> actually correct, and that dumping billions of tonnes of toxic crap into
>>> the environment every year does /not/ in fact have /any/ influence on
>>> Earth's changing environmental conditions (such as melting polar ice,
>>> for example), and that the /real/ cause is some sort of natural cycle of
>>> solar activity - or even that global warming is not occurring at /all/.
>>>
>>> Let's pretend that's true.
>>>
>>> So ... /what/ exactly is the justification for dumping billions of
>>> tonnes of toxic crap into the environment every year?
>>>
>>> That's like saying, it's OK for my neighbour's dog to crap on my lawn,
>>> because ... it doesn't cause global warming.
>>>
>>> Or, it's OK for me to pour cyanide into a fish tank, because ... it
>>> doesn't cause global warming.
>>>
>>> Isn't there a rather unsubtle point the whole Global Warming debate is
>>> missing?
>>
>> Another good example is deforestation and oxygen supply.
>
> Because, to live, humans have to cook food, heat their homes and go from
> place to place. And the "toxic" gas they are pouring into the air is
> Carbon Dioxide -- something absolutely necessary for plant life (and,
> since we depend on plants, absolutely necessary for our life). The human
> proportion of carbon dioxide is something like .044% of all the yearly
> carbon dioxide emissions on earth. Temperatures are going down with the
> lack of sunspot activity -- but to keep the global warming bullshit from
> exploding, they now speak of "temperature bias" in satellites and in the
> thermometers in the ocean, while simultaneously cutting back on the
> number of land-based thermometers.
>
> The Northern Hemisphere ice cap extent has increased the last three
> years. In August of this year it was at 6.3 million square kilometers.
> In August of last year it was at 6.0. In 2006, it was at 5.4. In 2006 it
> was at 6.5, in 2005 at 6.3 -- etc. It goes up and down. The highest this
> number has been in the 31 years they have been measuring it was in 1983
> at 8.4 million. In 2001 it was at 7.5 million, in 1995 6.7 million.
>
> But that's only half the story. The Southern Hemisphere ice cap extent
> is currently very high -- in August it was at 18.6 million square
> kilometers, which is tied for number 1 in the last 31 years (with 2001).
> In the last 31 years (when these records first started) the August
> variation has been between 17.6 million square kilometers to 18.6
> million square kilometers. At this point we're at the high end, but it
> moves back forth within a few years. So where's the long-term trend for
> melting? (It doesn't exist.)
>
> This information comes from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which
> is supported by NSF and NASA.
>
> You can make you're own charts by going to their calculator at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y8ms2nc
I'll have a look, thanks.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Software patents destroy innovation
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/0 :0 Thu Sep 24 08:24 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkq88hMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7SgwCeKmr7j2ZH8YiKP9Q4Y85h4Sfo
axQAn38k8jStxPmW74sXg/ocuuCm0nEf
=1fla
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
