Message from discussion
Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,uk.politics.environment,sci.environment,alt.global-warming,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict
global warming theory
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <a34c68a0-0bef-44f1-9efb-765f667b2279@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <41e9fec6-9149-4b92-83ee-3e3f2f92d8b5@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 170.140.55.46
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218477570 20137 127.0.0.1 (11 Aug 2008 17:59:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:59:30 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=170.140.55.46;
posting-account=EDxswQkAAAAMtpGIdULRoliPhqEA85o4
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16)
Gecko/20080702 Firefox/2.0.0.16,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On Aug 10, 10:24 am, Steve Wallis
<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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".
>
> Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues
> 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.
>
> On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > 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)
>
> > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures
> > from 1943-74 ...
>
> I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and
> 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").
>
> > > and
> > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
>
> > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is
> > 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.
>
> I did Google "global dimming" as you suggested and came across the
> 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.
>
> Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot
> 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.
>
> > > [I
> > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by
> > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
>
> > This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek-
> > loving "Living Marxism" crowd.
>
> I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is
> linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the
> programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and
> they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.
>
> I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex-
> organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they
> make about global warming can be discounted.
>
> > You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.
>
> > Fran
>
> I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found
> arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support
Really. Considering that the arguments for it are on scientific web
sites and those against it on blogs or industry-funded fronts sites,
this tells us a lot about your ability to think critically.
> of it. When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50
> years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the
> coldest Easter for 46 years, or that the UK sea level is only rising
> 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy
> consensus of envrionmentalists,
Actually it's of scientists. Every scientific organization in the
world, articles published in journals like Science and Nature...
>most of the media and virtually all
> politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a
> catastrophe.
>
Yeah, I bet you're skeptical of that "earth goes around the sun" thing
too then.
> --
> 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/galaxiasteveand 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 tohttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156
> For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go tohttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89
|
