Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] CEI's ridiculous ads

["Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 5/23/06, Christian M. Cepel <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> I don't know as how I give any credit to the commercials, but I find it
> very interesting which parts Mike, JK, Rick, etc have chosen to 'debunk'
> and such and which parts were completely ignored with no response.

What parts?  It's all crap.  These ads are a caricature.

> If I recall from watching yesterday that they claim evidence that
> glaciers are growing & advancing in Greenland and that the snowpack is
> increasing, not decreasing in Antartica.  True???

They are being really, really selective, and they know it.  The two
Science papers they cite actually pre-suppose global warming to
explain the phenomena in question.  Briefly, there is not much snow in
some places in the arctic and antarctic because of existing weather
patterns *and* the fact that it's so cold: you can't have snow in a
place if all of the moisture has already been snowed out of it.
Winnepeg is a very cold place, but they don't get as much snow as you
would think, because there's not much moisture in the air by the time
any storm system hits Winnepeg.

What the articles show is that current patterns do have certain
glaciers and ice sheets thickening...but we already knew that many
others are retreating, thinning or collapsing.  The real question is
whether the NET effect globally is more or less ice.  Oddly enough,
the CEI didn't mention that.  Would you like to guess why?

> Quick to tout the recent whitehouse study, but even quicker to ignore
> research by others that have either determined that there is no global
> warming or that the effects are not the extreme that folks are claiming
> they are.

That wasn't a White House study; it was a massive study done by the
National Academy of Science USA which was meant to be definitive on
the question.  At this point in time, the consensus in favor of the
fact that human activity is one cause of global warming is just
massive.  Over the past five years or so, it's been a complete rout,
and we're no longer at the point where most principled holders of
alternative opinions can limbo underneath the confidence bars.

>  In addition the entire history of climatic fluctuation is completely
> ignored.  You won't even TOUCH this one.  I have never heard a single GW
> person address the cyclic climatic trends issue.  They just ignore it.
> Maunder Minimum?  What's that?  Little European Ice Age?   Come again,
> what are you talking about?  Dude, it's like  there's global warming.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.  I
suggest you go to the library, read the papers you talk about, and
come back when you've thought it over a bit.
The great thing about being a geek is that you know you can do this,
if you put the effort into it.  If you're interested in the subject,
you can learn a lot.

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion