OK.  One big reply to help reduce OT bloat.

Wirt writes:
>> "It is very difficult to make that claim. There is a consensus in the
>> scientific community," Silverman said."
>
> That's true. The number of scientists who believe that global warming is
> *not* a threat is only slightly larger than the number of scientists who
> believe that the earth was created 4004 years ago.

Then ironically adds (although in a different context):
>Of course, the truth isn't determined democratically. Even if everyone
>absolutely believed something to be true in their heart of hearts, it
doesn't
>necessarily make it so. It only offers it up to the possibilty of being a
>well-accepted myth, one that relieves everyone of any further heavy
thinking.

But then feels the need to insert:
>"Metaphors be with you, Luke."

Hey! This is serious.  Quit cloning around...

The debate on global temperature is two-fold: political/financial and
scientific.

Mr. Rosenblatt confirms the political component of the beast when he writes:
>Why is anybody discussing this article as if it came from a credible
source?
>Look at the other articles on the page and tell me that the publisher is
>interested in unbiased reportage. Then tell me again with a straight face.

There is a group who uses global temperature as a tool to forward their
cause.  Since the fall of communism, the world has been less-likely to give
control to a central authority because they believe they actually know
better.  To gain this authority, these groups must piggy-back on a cause.
The environment is an excellent cause because nobody is against clean
air/water and beautiful land.  If one can determine that humans are the
cause, well then, a government would not be called socialist even if it did
control businesses under the guise of an environmental protector.  Also, the
global temperature debate is big money.  There is a lot of money in the
study of this issue.  Be good to your congress person and they'll be good to
you.  And then some scientist actually believe the thermo-nuclear furnace we
like to call the Sun has a lot to do with the temperature of the earth.

Mr. Gale states:
>I thought it interesting that when I read in one account that icebergs the
>size of Delaware are breaking off from the ice cap (attributed to global
>warming), then you get other scientists who declare that the thing is a
>'Fairy Tale'.

I think it's more than a he-said/she-said issue.  Part of science is looking
to disprove theories.  Name calling doesn't count though.

Of course, Wirt gets to the crux of the matter:
>The question of great interest at the moment is the degree to which the
>warming is anthropogenic, and if it is, can it be reversed? Climatic swings
>larger than we're seeing now are common in the meteorological/geologic
record
>over the last 200,000 years. But the extent of the problems that global
>warming will now create are difficult to underestimate.

I would add that given the choice of global warming or cooling, I'd rather
be planting corn in the fresh mud of the Yukon Territory than in the snow
drifts of Arkansas.  The Little Ice Age also reduced the parcels of land and
cause much trouble.

Mr. Floyd jumps in with:
>Sure, we'll have both.  And I hope you're enjoying one of the extremes
>right now.  Yeah, it could get "warmer", but in geological terms it's
>pretty warm right now as it is.

I think I remember that the Medieval period was a bit warmer and
geologically it has been much warmer than it is now.  If I find some URLs
with the charts, I'll pass them along.

There is a retired British merchant marine who has been following the global
temperature issues since the impending ice-age of the 1970s.  He has a web
site that seems to give some good science on the subject.  Fair warning,
there is a lot of stuff there:

http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/

Mark "Is it hot or is it just me?" Wonsil

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *