GLOBAL WARMING AGAIN

truffler1635 at my-deja.com truffler1635 at my-deja.com
Fri Oct 29 19:48:41 EST 1999


In article <3818F2AB.CCEB3401 at planttel.net>,
  ted at eaglering.com wrote:
>
>
> Don Baccus wrote:
> >
> > In article <38024D5C.E2BFA6AD at planttel.net>,
> > Ted Kegebein  <ted at eaglering.com> wrote:
> >
> > >It's no joke. The PC-science that the Global Sky is Falling proponents
> > >use is greatly flawed. Their simple computer model doesn't reflex the
> > >complicated interactions inherent in the real world, nor does their
> > >model even consider the fluctuations in Solar output---while logic would
> > >dictate that they should.
Ah, I think the use of supercomputers probably reflects state of the
art, not "simple computer model". At least, the one being used at Oregon
State University's School of Oceanography's study is pretty
sophisticated, and based mostly on water temperatures in the Pacific
Ocean.
> >
> > First, there's not a single model, try "models" instead.
> >
> > Secondly, the models aren't "simple".  The science behind them is
> > far more rigorous than the thinking that says "if science contradicts
> > right-wing dogma it must be wrong".
> >
> > Thirdly, the models incorporate known inputs, etc and correlate
> > well with observed data.
>
> Simply not true.
> The model has been debunked, and doesn't relate to
> reality.
Your sources are suspect. KGW and KATU television stations currently are
running ads stating global warming is a fact based on the best science
available. You are welcome to dispute the findings, as "reality", but
the same models predicted Oregon's current weather conditions 2-3 years
ago. That seems to be pretty close for me. Also, check out Janet
Lubchenko's data, including her letter to President Clinton and the
Congress. It should be available somewhere on-line already. You might
also want to check on her credentials, Ted.

I checked the site you listed in an earlier post, and found a
Republican-controlled think tank. Hardly "scientific" data. I'd call it
more hopeful or delusional myself. But everyone is entitled to their
opinion.

The site points out an interesting point: why would a think tank want to
quash any data refuting their own data on global warming? <insert
favorite conspiracy theory here>

BTW, the latest data on the Antarctic ice mass (roughly the size of
Texas and Oregon combined) indicates the region between the ice flow and
the ocean bottom (below sea-level) has been receeding an average of 100
feet per year over the last 10,000 years. Hmm. About as long as
agriculture? Or about as long as deforestation?

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list