|
|
alt.global-warming |
On 11 Aug, 01:32, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > > On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 10, 4:11 am,Steve Wallis<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > > > > and > > > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > I did Google "global dimming" as you suggested and came across the > > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols It's easy to dismiss "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as propaganda That programme showed a graph with decreasing temperatures for the I spotted the following letter in the Guardian (the #65279 is on the I am becoming fed up with these doomsayers. In the 1970s we were told As an academic I cannot help noting that both the writer of your > I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be According to NASA statistics for the northern hemisphere, 1998 was the > <sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a > So much hangs on one word here : "cosy" and you don't support it. The --
> On Aug 11, 12:24 am,Steve Wallis The graph on this page only shows (as far as five-year averages are
> > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly
> > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power,
> > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro-
> > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on
> > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power
> > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> > may
> > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also
> > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform
> > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107);
> > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments
> > there.
> > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding
> > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the
> > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > > from 1943-74 ...
> > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier
> > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation.
> > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet
> > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after
> > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming
> > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but
> > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I
> > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of
> > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more
> > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even
> > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed
> > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed
> > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that
> > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> > Wikipedia pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming. The graph
> > on that page, which takes data fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record,
> > does not show dimming for anything like the period 1943-74 - in fact
> > it's only in the 1940s according to those graphs.
> > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have
> > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age
> > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the
> > 1940s.
> takes place
concerned) global temperatures reducing in the 1940s. This looks to be
based on the same data used in the Wikpedia pages I mentioned. You
gave the dates 1943-74, which certainly doesn't tally with this graph,
and I remember talk of an ice age when I was growing up (and I was
only born in 1966). There was a TV programme with excerpts shown in
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" which it claimed represented the
scientific consensus at the time of a predicted ice age, but with a
sole scientist giving a contradictory position suggesting global
warming from CO2.
from "kooks", right-wingers pretending to be Marxists (the LM crowd)
and people in the pay of the power companies, but the person most
featured on that programme was a former editor of New Scientist - the
foremost science publication in the UK.
sort of period you gave (1943-74) - completely different from those
clearly made-up graphs.
web page http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/04/climatechange.fossi...
I don't know what character it is supposed to be) from Professor John
France, Swansea:
the world would get dramatically colder. In the 1990s much the same
people were telling us that doom awaited us,...#65279; imminently,
thanks to the hole in the ozone layer, which now seems to have gone
curiously out of fashion.
article, Andrew Simms, and the researcher on whose work he relied,
work for a foundation whose very existence depends on the notion that
there is such a thing as dramatic climate change.
made that you find particularly persuasive. Would you like to
elaborate?
> > I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found I did say "quite a lot" rather than "a lot", so I haven't heard all
> > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support
> > of it.
> very familiar with the arguments on both sides and the response above
> shows that you aren't.
the arguments. I'm personally a scientist (with a PhD in computer
science) and am perfectly capable of being convinced if the evidence
for your point of view is good enough!
> There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of I had to search for "etiology", not knowing what it meant. [Please
> those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring
> but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed,
> or the etiology.
explain "TSI" which you used later in the message; it's a bit annoying
when words/acronyms are used that I don't understand; use of such
terms must be even more confusing for people for which English is not
their first language.] According to Wikpedia, etiology is the study of
causation. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" suggests that global
warming causes carbon dioxide rather than the other way round; other
sceptics say that people do cause global warming via greenhouse gases
but other factors such as solar flares are more significant. I don't
know enough physics to be able to judge which of these views is most
persuasive.
hottest year to date until 2005. Even if you agree with global warming
theory, there are clearly other factors at play. And I've also heard
that the southern hemisphere isn't actually warming (or maybe to a
lesser degree), but NASA won't release figures to confirm (or deny)
this!
> > When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 Yes, I know, but it makes an already rather scpetical public even more
> > years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the
> > coldest Easter for 46 years,
> sustained and predictable patern of weather over a period long enough
> to reduce to noise regional weather anomalies.
sceptical about global warming theory. Perhaps the Chinese regime is
currently playing lip-service to global warming theory but I wouldn't
imagine the general public in China is very convinced of it!
> > or that the UK sea level is only rising OK, maybe "cosy" is not the best word bearing in mind that
> > 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy
> > consensus of environmentalists, most of the media and virtually all
> > politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a
> > catastrophe.
> implication here is of some sort of skullduggery but if you are to
> make that claims and impugn the integrity of the vast majority of the
> world's scientists, who, unlike you, have to make specific testable
> claims and risk public and career ending humiliation, you will need
> more than one snide observation.
environmentalists are encouraging politicians who say they agree with
global warming but aren't prepared to do much (if anything) about it.
However, does it strike you as strange that right-wing capitalist
views are dominating politics in the West, but those politicians
actually agree with lefties on the environment?
Steve Wallis (Glasgow, Scotland)
For important/urgent communications, please email:
warcryst...@yahoo.co.uk
Blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
My pages at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Good Intentions Network: http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for PR-based Socialism: http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89