Re: Global warming and your garden

In article <ou6dnXVd0vCtprLVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "Paul E. Lehmann" <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Billy wrote:
> 
> > In article <muFXj.17$aq.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "aluckyguess" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From what I read lately we should be more
> >> worried about global cooling.
> > 
> > You need to improve your reading material. What
> > does disappearing ice sheets in Greenland and
> > Antarctica (not to mention the attendant 200'
> > rise in ocean levels) suggest to you? Heating or
> > cooling? Hmmm?
> 
> What did it mean during the time of Eric the Red
> and the other Viking explorers.  It ain't the
> first time it has happened.

It wasn't the industrial burning of fossil fuel that 
lead Eric and his crew out to Greenland. And with Eric and his crew in 
mind, it can be argued that if they had changed some of their old habits 
and adopted some of the Inuits strategies for staying
alive, instead of the stiff-necked insistence on being good Norwegians,
they probably would have survived.

Read "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared 
Diamond, for a fascinating account of Eric's Norse colony.
http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/014303655
6/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211145979&sr=1-1

The great preponderance of scientists find "Global Warming" credible. It 
isn't a gamble we can afford to lose.

The arguments against "Global Warming" are the same arguments that 
were used against the dangers of cigarettes, acid rain, and 
ozone depletion (chloroflurohydrocarbons: CFCs), i.e. you can't 
prove it using the scientific method of repeatable results, yet we
now know that cigarettes are a health hazard for the smoker and 
anyone around the smoker, and that acid rain, and the diminished 
ozone layer (protects us from ultraviolet radiation) are man made
events.

Better people than I have tried to present the case for "Global 
Warming". Some people, usually people who don't want to stop 
polluting, or make money from fossil fuels, don't want to believe 
it, and will sup****t voices against it.

   
   
   

January 3, 2007

Scientists' Re****t Do***ents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation 
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create 
Confusion

WA****NGTON, DC, Jan. 3-A new re****t from the Union of Concerned 
Scientists offers the most comprehensive do***entation to date of how 
ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as 
well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the 
scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the 
issue. According to the re****t, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 
million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations 
that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of 
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused 
lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' 
Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has 
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay 
government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco
..html

We can't wait 40 years. We should have started in the last century.

Please note the use of citations to sup****t an argument.
-- 

Billy
Bush Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg&ref=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU&feature=related