CO2 Treaty Dead On Arrival

John Alway jalway at
Thu Jun 26 21:53:21 EST 1997

ejh at (Ed) wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:04:07 -0500, John Alway
<jalway at> wrote:

>>         That's not surprising, as most followers of a movement 
>>       aren't like a movement's leaders.  Many of them are simply
>>       being duped by the relentless propoganda.  Notice how often
>>       it is stated (by media types, etc.) that global warming is a 
>>       fact, as if it has been established.   It hasn't been at
>>       all, and, in fact, data shows a statistically signficant
>>       (though slight) downward trend in temperatures over the last 
>>       18 years or so. 

>Data please?

	  Sure, check this link out ...

>Where did you get these facts?

	  From scientists.

>As someone with a good bit of familiarity with earth science I think
>it's pretty clear that there is mostly a goodconcensus on the
>so-called greenhouse effect, although as always there's a lot of
>controversy about whether we can see the effects yet and of course
>exactly what will happen.

	  Obviously there is concensus on the greenhouse effect, that's
	what keeps the planet warm and has done so as long as man has
	been hear and beyond.  The issue is over global warming,
	a quite different issue.

>But the problem is there and won't go away by pretending it's not.

	  I'm not pretending.  The temperature record simply shows
	no problem.  I've seen the graphs many times, and I've listened
	to and read talks by the best in the field (Lindzen of MIT,
	Patrick Michaels of The University of Virginia, et. al.)


>>         This is how virtually all environmental propoganda is
>>       spread, i.e. unquestioningly.



>That has not been my experience. 

	  Ever heard of the attacks on nuclear power? Ever heard 
	of asbestos?  Ever heard of alar?  Ever heard of DDT?
	Ever heard of global warming?  Ever heard of pesticides
	used on crops?  Ever heard of second-hand smoke?  How
	about the idea of unbridled population rises (particularly
	the predications of Paul Ehrlich)?

>Of course, working with
>hundreds of earth scientists over the last 10 years has been an
>unusual experience. Scientists never accept any science

	  On the contrary, poor scientists do all the time, and
	gov't and science make for bad bed fellows, as the crude
	rises to the top in such scenarios, as the best are 
	ousted via pure political muscle.  Dr Krug and NAPAP
	is a prime example of this.  The gov't has far, far 
	too much power in science.


>We know what the atmosphere is, and
>something about the radiation budget of the planet. We know the effect
>that the so-called greenhouse gases should have, and we can messure
>some of that right now.

>What part of this is not clear to you?

	  The part where you say you can measure it.

>>         Humans who don't use reason are ripe to fall prey to just such 
>>       thinking _all_the_time_, and so long as they don't use reason, they 
>>       will continue to go for junk science, ufos, environmentalism, alleged
>>       religious signs written in cookies, etc.  They are simply not 
>>       intellectually armed to deal with bad ideas.  The penalty for such 
>>       thinking isn't minor.  If we end up with too many people like this, 
>>       we'll see society go down the tubes but fast, and deaths will occur on
>>       a massive scale, as it takes great brain power and reason to keep 
>>       a modern society afloat (think about it).  _This_, I submit, is the 
>>       real pestilence upon this world, and the only reason environmentalism
>>       has any recognition.

>Well reason then!

	  Point out where I haven't.

>All I see are your assertions that environmentalists are wrong about
>global warming. Where is your data? Where are your studies? Where are
>your references to journal articles?

	  You are mistaken, my point about the global temperature 
	trending downward over the last 18 years was certainly 
	a fact.  And all throughout my position I gaved reasoned
	argument.  If you wish to show otherwise, you are free
	to attempt it.  However, you should be specific.

	  I've provided tons of sources many times.

	  Try this link for starters...

>In short, where is your reasoning?

	  I should ask you where your powers of observation


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list