posted 01-23-2001 12:16 PM            

So Seeker and the "bored housewife" will say this is all a sham, a coverup, a plot and will bury their heads deeper in the sand (or whatever).

The Rooster will crow about lower upper atmosphere temperature measurements and continue to protest that what is occurring could just be part of "natural variability".

Don't you just love the way he uses the word "natural"?

For those more astute and observant, the correlation between this report and the CBS Eye on America "Taming the Weather" series, where Edward Teller emphatically states that his "Sunscreen for Planet Earth" theory of spraying reflective particles in the upper atmosphere "should begin as soon as possible"....will realize that in all likelihood THEY are arleady doing this and it is the public relations campaign that is underway to "prepare the masses".

My own opinion is that this in not all that is being sprayed...but the disclosures are starting to emerge.

posted 01-23-2001 01:18 PM            

Sorry, Throat, but I read this report earlier and when I clicked on your link, this is as far as I went - and that in itself was enough.

You are a UN loving, green, globalist, aren't you? I bet you cried when Bill would't get on the plane Saturday.

posted 01-23-2001 09:31 PM            

you are persistent, and I have little to say that I have not said before...so...here's a post by a rather intelligent fellow that you may find interesting....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is another Ice Age now in it's early stages???

Alcor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really think humans have anything to do with the climate changes that are now becoming increasingly evident to be in progress.

I first noticed the local weather patterns beginning to shift and change at least 10 to 12 years ago; long before the trails, HAARP, or the radar rings or any of the other phenomena we are now witnessing even existed.
We really don't know what triggers an ice age, what science does know, is that the glaciation lasts between 100,000-120,000 years, and that the intermediate warm periods between ice ages are only about 10,000-12.000 years in extent.

The last ice age ended somewhere around 12,000-15,000 years ago, meaning we are overdue for the start of another one by perhaps 1000 years.

I recall reading a magazine article back in the mid-'80s which discussed the oddity that as the climate begins to shift, you would in theory have wild swings in climate, i.e. very hot summers alternating with extremely cold winters, atmospheric patterns (jet streams, rain/drought, cloud cover), in flux all over the planet. How long this process would take is an open question. No one really knows how long it takes before the planet hits the deep freeze stage, it could be centuries, or perhaps only a generation or less, perhaps much less.

I wonder if this is not part of what we are seeing, and that all the talk of weather modification is nothing but disinformation thrown out as a cover story.

I just do not buy the notion that any of
this is man made at all.

Al
========================================

posted 01-24-2001 02:17 AM            

I am still skeptical that Global warming even exists, so I surely can't know what the cause is.

I have read both sides of the issue and I don't see any strong evidence on either side. However, I believe reducing pollution is a good idea even if Global Warming is ficticious.

Anyways, all these UN treaties should be sending off warning signs in people's heads, but I guess few people truly read the 1961 State Dept. document I posted a while back.

Oh well, I guess we can all watch events unfold and worry about it after it's too late to change anything.

posted 01-25-2001 01:29 PM            

In 1978, scientists predicted that global warming would threaten ice shelves on Antarctica's northern peninsula. Now, more than 20 years later, researchers studying Antarctica say satellite data indicates this is happening.

Scientists say warmer summer temperatures are behind the disintegration of the Larsen Ice Shelf and others on the Antarctic Peninsula. And, they warn, more changes are in store for the region, as warmer temperatures continue to take their toll on the frozen mass.

...more

Of course there will be those who say that this is perfectly "natural" or simply UN propaganda.

posted 01-27-2001 06:20 AM            

Average world temperatures may, in fact, be rising. But it's a giant leap to connect that fact with human agency, as the IPCC report and the bureaucrats responsible for it are attempting to do. The Earth's climate is not static and changes fairly frequently — with no help from humanity. Many climate scientists believe we are emerging from a "Little Ice Age" and that the planet is returning to its more normal, warmer state. But the point is no one really knows for sure what's happening, or why.
Before the United States buys into a costly international agreement that could force massive economic dislocations — and cutting back total output of carbon dioxide to 10 percent below 1990 levels would certainly accomplish that — it's not unreasonable to demand a solid scientific basis for such a precipitous move. Politicized computer models and hysterical rants from the IPCC based on the faulty data spewed out by those models is simply insufficient.<"

Sounds reasonable to me. The title of the above piece is "WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?"

I may be naive, even uneducated, but I am not gullible.

posted 01-28-2001 08:55 AM            

What about before that? http://www.junkscience.com/oct98/jensen.htm

posted 01-29-2001 03:49 PM            

Just what scientific data would YOU accept?

What would satisfy YOUR demanding requirements for absolute CERTAINTY that the global warming that we apparently all agree is occuring, is due to anthropogenic influence and not merely a "natural" fluctuation?

And IF your position is wrong, what will be the ultimate cost in terms of "massive economic dislocations"?

Do you actually believe that proceeding blindly along with the status quo doesn't have economic costs? (even if Indiana is a long ways from the coast).