Let's be (as Fresco or Fuller would urge) scientific about everything INCLUDING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Angie
Oct 12, 2009, 12:13:41 AM10/12/09
to Resource-Based Economy (RBE), An...@whatnewsshouldbe.org
Let's be (as Fresco or Fuller would urge) scientific about everything
including GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. Let's look beyond the hype, you
know, let's actually look at the facts. See BBC News article below
regarding these facts. Are the computer model predictions about
global warming holding up? As a matter of fact they are not. This
global warming theory is a crock - and a dangerous one at that.
Dangerous because it is giving those who get to decide how the
resources of the globe are currently spent an excuse to waste our
resources on more expensive forms of energy when cheaper forms are
not, in fact, causing any global warming. Instead of creating
expensive forms of energy, our efforts should be targeted to getting
energy to the 25 percent of humanity still forced to live without
electricity as quickly (and that, by necessity today means as cheaply)
as we can. That's because the lack of electricity is not just an
inconvenience for 1/4 of us, it kills 4,100 people each day (http:/
whatnewsshouldbe/id8.html )! You know TODAY, not 50 years from now
but TODAY, AND EVERY DAY. So, while well meaning people worry and
work to save the world from a future speculative threat now shown to
be bullshit (global warming), the well meaning do nothing to stop a
current, real threat that kills 4,100 daily and are actually making it
more difficult for those desperate for electricity by trying to force
more expensive energies on those who can least afford them and all for
a reason that is now proving to be scientifically unsound.
--------------------------------
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
10/9/09
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact
that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but
in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any
increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made
carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our
planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that
man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no
control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence
for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm
quickly.
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy
from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes
from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal
Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and
cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those
trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't
have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds
University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company
specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is
currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely
responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the
international scientific community at a conference in London at the
end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our
oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
“ In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth
and has recently started to cool down ”
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from
Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global
temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool
cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation
(PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that
means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global
temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has
recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to
1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm
mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of
global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is
evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and
cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part
compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence
on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate
predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles
into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known
factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are
accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never
increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of
slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global
temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly
up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may
indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could
last another 10-20 years.
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate
modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes
that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of
man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that
warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be
hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will
reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is
possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of
global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing
global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting
up.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Published: 2009/10/09 15:22:46 GMT
An...@WhatNewsShouldBe.org
www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org
including GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. Let's look beyond the hype, you
know, let's actually look at the facts. See BBC News article below
regarding these facts. Are the computer model predictions about
global warming holding up? As a matter of fact they are not. This
global warming theory is a crock - and a dangerous one at that.
Dangerous because it is giving those who get to decide how the
resources of the globe are currently spent an excuse to waste our
resources on more expensive forms of energy when cheaper forms are
not, in fact, causing any global warming. Instead of creating
expensive forms of energy, our efforts should be targeted to getting
energy to the 25 percent of humanity still forced to live without
electricity as quickly (and that, by necessity today means as cheaply)
as we can. That's because the lack of electricity is not just an
inconvenience for 1/4 of us, it kills 4,100 people each day (http:/
whatnewsshouldbe/id8.html )! You know TODAY, not 50 years from now
but TODAY, AND EVERY DAY. So, while well meaning people worry and
work to save the world from a future speculative threat now shown to
be bullshit (global warming), the well meaning do nothing to stop a
current, real threat that kills 4,100 daily and are actually making it
more difficult for those desperate for electricity by trying to force
more expensive energies on those who can least afford them and all for
a reason that is now proving to be scientifically unsound.
--------------------------------
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
10/9/09
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact
that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but
in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any
increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made
carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our
planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that
man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no
control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence
for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm
quickly.
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy
from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes
from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal
Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and
cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those
trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't
have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds
University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company
specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is
currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely
responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the
international scientific community at a conference in London at the
end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our
oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
“ In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth
and has recently started to cool down ”
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from
Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global
temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool
cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation
(PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that
means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global
temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has
recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to
1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm
mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of
global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is
evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and
cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part
compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence
on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate
predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles
into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known
factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are
accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never
increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of
slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global
temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly
up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may
indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could
last another 10-20 years.
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate
modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes
that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of
man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that
warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be
hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will
reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is
possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of
global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing
global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting
up.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Published: 2009/10/09 15:22:46 GMT
An...@WhatNewsShouldBe.org
www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org
Angie
Oct 12, 2009, 9:35:24 PM10/12/09
to Resource-Based Economy (RBE)
Just wanted to give some extra mainstream sources to my post earlier
today about facts on the ground (and in the air and oceans) giving the
lie to global warming.
Here are some earlier links where the mainstream press is starting
to admit (sometimes very reluctantly) that global warming not
happening, some rather orwellian too:
The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate
change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building
momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global
temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even
drop in the next few years.
Source: Stable Global Temperatures Could Stifle Action on Climate -
NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
“Warming might be on hold, study finds – Discovery.com- msnbc.com” -
“[a]ccording to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump
and could go into hiding for decades.” . . . Following a 30-year
trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001
despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that
should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.” Saturday, March 07,
2009 9:10:06 PM http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/
“An average of all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that
models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2C.
But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all
surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite
measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than
expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have
actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1C per decade. . .Likewise,
and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s
oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have
measurements. . . . over the last two years, sea levels have not
increased at all – actually, they show a slight drop.over the last two
years” Source: Let the data speak for itself, Björn Lomborg: |
guardian.co.uk, Address : <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange> October 14 2008
NATURE magazine article:
Now, an entirely new discussion is capturing the imagination, based on
a group of scientists from Germany predicting a pause in global
warming last week in the journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/
nature06921.html)).
“The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on
decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent
examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-
temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and
northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are
potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5,
6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this
state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill
potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that
uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly
overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions
with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to
predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10,
particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus
these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate
predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal
natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing,
we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-
term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North
American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical
Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that
global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as
natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific
temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
Source: Access : Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the
North Atlantic sector : Nature
Address : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
See also “Next decade may see no warming” (5/1/08) Source: BBC NEWS |
Science/Nature | Address : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
My favorite of the Orwellian stuff:
From the NY Times Science – Dot Earth Blog: “A Cooler Year on a
Warming Planet” at
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/a-cooler-year-on-a-warming-planet/
And here now is a caption that the New York Times’ put under one of
their pictures in an article they wrote trying to explain how the
public should react to the unsettled science a/k/a as the evidence
which leads one to believe either: that the earth is not in fact
warming; and/or that any warming has actually NOT been caused by
greenhouse gases
“Discordant findings aside, the theory of rising human influence on
climate endures. “
Caption to photograph accompanying this article: “Climate Experts
Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/earth/29clim.html
Although I haven’t checked in out in quite awhile, I generally
recommend that people check out the New York Times’ blog by the same
reporter who wrote that article above. This Times’ blog is called
“Dot Earth” and while that New York Times reporter who runs this blog
IS a big believer in the global warming threat (despite the admittedly
“discordant findings”) and also loves spreading lots of Malthusian
bullshit, he permits people who disagree with his thesis to respond to
his posts and there have been some very lively and enlightening debate
there. It’s at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com
One of my favorites from this Times reporter’s blog is from 7/7/08,
which mentioned the fact that global temperatures had actually
stagnated and/or gone down for the last eight years in a row !!. (At
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/climate-trends-with-some-noise-removed/
) (This reporter is only now in October 2009 reluctantly admitting in
regular news stories, not just in tiny responses to blog posts, about
these global temperatures). Of course, global warming proponents and
New York Times’ reporters didn't advise us of the global temperature
facts so clearly, so very close reading was required, like when this
integrity-challenged reporter noted in the cited 7/7/08 blog entry
that:
“The resulting graphs of global temperature trends, generated by David
Thompson of Colorado State, were posted on Realclimate a few days
ago . . . The curves, displaying results using both Goddard’s
temperature data and those from the Hadley Center for Climate
Prediction in England, show a much smoother trend toward a warmer
world (with very clear drops associated with volcanic eruptions). But,
frankly, there is probably enough of a short-term plateau and dip
since around 2000 — particularly in the curves derived from the Hadley
Center temperature data — to keep those opposed to restrictions on
greenhouse gases fired up about the limited power of such substances
to heat up the Earth.“ (my emphasis).
Oh, and here’s a good article about how bad the computer modeling –
and that’s the whole factual basis of the global
Computer modelling of temperatures in the Antarctic have proved wildly
inaccurate, scientists have admitted
Source: Antarctic ‘not as warm as feared’ – Telegraph
Address : <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/
2008/05/08/eatemp108.xml>
An...@WhatNewsShouldBe.org
www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org
today about facts on the ground (and in the air and oceans) giving the
lie to global warming.
Here are some earlier links where the mainstream press is starting
to admit (sometimes very reluctantly) that global warming not
happening, some rather orwellian too:
The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate
change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building
momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global
temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even
drop in the next few years.
Source: Stable Global Temperatures Could Stifle Action on Climate -
NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
“Warming might be on hold, study finds – Discovery.com- msnbc.com” -
“[a]ccording to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump
and could go into hiding for decades.” . . . Following a 30-year
trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001
despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that
should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.” Saturday, March 07,
2009 9:10:06 PM http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/
“An average of all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that
models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2C.
But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all
surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite
measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than
expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have
actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1C per decade. . .Likewise,
and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s
oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have
measurements. . . . over the last two years, sea levels have not
increased at all – actually, they show a slight drop.over the last two
years” Source: Let the data speak for itself, Björn Lomborg: |
guardian.co.uk, Address : <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange> October 14 2008
NATURE magazine article:
Now, an entirely new discussion is capturing the imagination, based on
a group of scientists from Germany predicting a pause in global
warming last week in the journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/
nature06921.html)).
“The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on
decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent
examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-
temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and
northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are
potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5,
6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this
state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill
potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that
uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly
overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions
with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to
predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10,
particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus
these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate
predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal
natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing,
we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-
term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North
American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical
Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that
global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as
natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific
temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
Source: Access : Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the
North Atlantic sector : Nature
Address : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
See also “Next decade may see no warming” (5/1/08) Source: BBC NEWS |
Science/Nature | Address : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
My favorite of the Orwellian stuff:
From the NY Times Science – Dot Earth Blog: “A Cooler Year on a
Warming Planet” at
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/a-cooler-year-on-a-warming-planet/
And here now is a caption that the New York Times’ put under one of
their pictures in an article they wrote trying to explain how the
public should react to the unsettled science a/k/a as the evidence
which leads one to believe either: that the earth is not in fact
warming; and/or that any warming has actually NOT been caused by
greenhouse gases
“Discordant findings aside, the theory of rising human influence on
climate endures. “
Caption to photograph accompanying this article: “Climate Experts
Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/earth/29clim.html
Although I haven’t checked in out in quite awhile, I generally
recommend that people check out the New York Times’ blog by the same
reporter who wrote that article above. This Times’ blog is called
“Dot Earth” and while that New York Times reporter who runs this blog
IS a big believer in the global warming threat (despite the admittedly
“discordant findings”) and also loves spreading lots of Malthusian
bullshit, he permits people who disagree with his thesis to respond to
his posts and there have been some very lively and enlightening debate
there. It’s at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com
One of my favorites from this Times reporter’s blog is from 7/7/08,
which mentioned the fact that global temperatures had actually
stagnated and/or gone down for the last eight years in a row !!. (At
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/climate-trends-with-some-noise-removed/
) (This reporter is only now in October 2009 reluctantly admitting in
regular news stories, not just in tiny responses to blog posts, about
these global temperatures). Of course, global warming proponents and
New York Times’ reporters didn't advise us of the global temperature
facts so clearly, so very close reading was required, like when this
integrity-challenged reporter noted in the cited 7/7/08 blog entry
that:
“The resulting graphs of global temperature trends, generated by David
Thompson of Colorado State, were posted on Realclimate a few days
ago . . . The curves, displaying results using both Goddard’s
temperature data and those from the Hadley Center for Climate
Prediction in England, show a much smoother trend toward a warmer
world (with very clear drops associated with volcanic eruptions). But,
frankly, there is probably enough of a short-term plateau and dip
since around 2000 — particularly in the curves derived from the Hadley
Center temperature data — to keep those opposed to restrictions on
greenhouse gases fired up about the limited power of such substances
to heat up the Earth.“ (my emphasis).
Oh, and here’s a good article about how bad the computer modeling –
and that’s the whole factual basis of the global
Computer modelling of temperatures in the Antarctic have proved wildly
inaccurate, scientists have admitted
Source: Antarctic ‘not as warm as feared’ – Telegraph
Address : <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/
2008/05/08/eatemp108.xml>
An...@WhatNewsShouldBe.org
www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages