<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Every good rant deserves a rebuttal.
Here's mine.<br>
<br>
On 3/20/13 1:17 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:023e01ce25a7$f18c4130$d4a4c390$@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
reason for that is some of the same “scientists” that
(wrongly) touted global cooling in the 1970s are the same
ones now (wrongly) preaching global warming.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Which ones are those?? Got any examples?? I think you may have a
mistaken impression of the state of scientific thought at the time
as well as today. This is a good graphic.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43">http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43</a><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span>
<blockquote cite="mid:023e01ce25a7$f18c4130$d4a4c390$@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
simple change of language from “global warming” to “climate
change” should be proof enough that global warming is not
happening. <br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is not only wrong, but it is kind of a silly "proof". The main
reason that the term has been changed was due to fact that many
deniers made silly comments like "well it snowed here today, so much
for global warming". The more precise term is in fact global climate
change. That is being fueled by the increase in average global
temperatures which are drastically affecting the climate. It is also
worth understanding the difference between climate and weather. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:023e01ce25a7$f18c4130$d4a4c390$@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
However, the politicians and greenies that used “global
warming” as justification for bigger government and more
government control of the private sector do not want to lose
that traction as the fraud of global warming is being
disproven.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again, this so wildly misunderstands the issue that it is hard to
know where to start to respond. It is an example of the thinking
that Al Gore invented global warming to take away your SUV.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:023e01ce25a7$f18c4130$d4a4c390$@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
So they (the politicians and greenies) are now using
“climate change” in a desperate attempt to tie any naturally
occurring climate condition to human influence.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, they are using climate change for the reason I stated above.<br>
<br>
Here are a few nice graphics for people to look at. <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php">http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php</a><br>
<br>
I'm sorry, but the inability of any one person (or group of people)
to understand something does not mean that the something is wrong.
For instance, there are still people today who think the Earth is
flat.<br>
<br>
Anthropomorphic influence on global warming/climate change is
undeniable. I will grant that there is still much debate about what,
if anything, we can do about it. But to deny its very existence will
render that important debate nearly impossible.<br>
<br>
BTW - for those that wonder. I am a geologist by education and
profession. Way back in 1983 I helped in some of the early research
on the deep ice cores from the Antarctic. This is not a recent
science.<br>
<br>
End of Rant for me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>