[at-l] Follow Through On Global Warming (OT)

[ellen at clinic.net (Bob C.)]

>"... Weary's "catastrophic warming" is both unsupported and insupportable. Even
>the highly biased UN study that's the  basis for a lot the "politicized
>science" floating around these days makes no such claims.  To use a corrected
>version of Weary's own words - the  "catastrophic" effects he speaks of come
>from those who those whose financial futures and careers depend on convincing
>people of their doomsday scenario, and by those who have given up thinking in
>favor of faith in a hysterically negative ideology.  I don't know any reputable
>scientist who would support the "catastrophic" scenario.  But there are
>certainly some third raters who support it," argues Jim.

Well, they seem to have warranted investigation by a Pentagon think tank. The
changes to the Gulf Stream is widely recognized among first rate scientists as a
possible impact of global warming. No one is saying it absolutely going to
happen. Many say it's a possibility. Many also say that past warming trends have
triggered significant climate changes in time spans as short as 10-20 years.

>"...But it is nice to know that he's finally accepted that there are multiple
>causes for global warming.  It's only taken a couple years for him to admit
>what I told him back on the TA list."

You and I know that this is blatant, deliberate nonsense. I challenge you to
find any post, anywhere in which I said CO2 is the only cause for global
warming. CO2 is a major cause and a cause that humans have some control over.
But everyone who has paid any attention to the issue at all, knows there are
multiple causes, ranging from natural cycles, sunspot activities, other
pollutants, cloud cover, methane....

 I've mentioned all of these during this continuing debate. Jim, I haven't seen
 any evidence that you have more than a superficial knowledge of the science
 behind global warming. I suspect the reason is you have let your politics get
 in the way of your reason.

 Weary