[meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven

[valparint at aol.com]

Mr. Farmer and Mr. Garrison:

The intent of the bet I proposed was not to make money. It was to 
challange the idiocy of the al-Gore crowd. So far, I have zero takers on a 
proposition that requires a mere 1/5 of the accepted figure.

Mr. Farmer:

The rain forest "lungs" have a lot of help from phytoplankton, which 
account for about 2/3 of all photosynthesis on the planet.

To the list in general:

I have no desire to see NYC underwater or any of the other horrors that so 
many are convinced are waiting for us, or our kids, or grandkids, or 
whatever. I do have a desire for rational discussion about global warming 
to continue.

Those who say the debate is over and that all reputable scientists are on 
board are full of it. They are all set to make economic and social 
decisions that will run into the deca-trillions and could cause more harm 
than good. Their attitude is "to hell with the nay sayers. We gotta do 
something now! Omigod!!", never mind that the proposed cure could well be 
worse than the alleged disease.

Here are 3 debatable questions for the highly touted ethanol "solution":

(1) Is ethanol a net energy winner or loser?

(2) What will the full environmental impact (fertilizer, runoff, energy 
for cultivation and processing, etc.) of greatly increased corn production 
be?

(3) What are the ethics of converting food to fuel? Is it ok to let people 
starve now so we can make ethanol? No blood for oil but starvation for 
alcohol.

Computer models that project decades into the future are a linchpin of 
global warming. The weather forecasters around here can't do better than 
plus or minus 3 degrees a few days from now. Why should anybody believe a 
50 year prediction?

Global warming hysteria is also propped up on a hockey stick. Whenever 
hockey sticks are around, hockey pucks can't be far away.


Paul Swartz