02-03-2007, 11:10 AM
|
#89 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>In article <umn7s2luifpo0gb0495v36k023tkj4h8f3@4ax.com>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>But it isn't about the environment, it's about power, control, and
>>>wealth.
>>
>>Couldn't agree more. And that applies at the individual level as well
>>- look at the funding spent on pro-global warming, and then contrast
>>the money spent on contrarian studies. No contest - you simply can't
>>get rich telling people that there's no lurking invisible monster
>>about to eat the earth, it seems.
>
> Oh, those that make money in ways threatened by addressing of global
>warming sure have a lot to lose and are putting money into generation of
>data or "data" that we don't have a problem! For one example, I remember
>something maybe about a decade ago by a major oil company saying how the
>temperature has not significantly warmed at some level a few miles aloft,
>which I expect to not warm up as much as the surface and lowest couple
>miles of the atmosphere would as a result of adding "greenhouse gases".
I believe what you're talking about was the NOAA data that was used to
exclude the urban heat centers (relying on mid-level atmospheric
temperatures, which would obviously also have to go up in the event
there was a true global warming scenario underway). The fact that the
alarmists have to use selective and incomplete data to support their
claims tells you all you really need to know. The fact they've
singled out CO2 as the culprit just shows that they count on the
masses not having done any reading on the subject (which is probably a
safe assumption).
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
|
|  |