GLOBAL WARMING AGAIN

Ted Kegebein kegebein at planttel.net
Sat Oct 30 09:10:29 EST 1999



truffler1635 at my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> 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.

You wish to completely ignore, as your biased models do, Solar Activity.
Why is that?



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list