"Roger McDodger" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575441.stm


--
The usual propaganda, proving nothing. And from the BBC!

"Roger McDodger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575441.stm


Try something based on facts:


I was taking the ****, actually. Did you not notice the website is for
kiddies LOL!?

Of course I did, I didn't want to embarrass you by pointing it out, since it
seems to be the level you work at.

I note you couldn't resist but regurgitate half the contents of the
internet back onto the newsgroupm. Very well done!


That was just the first page by search engine brought up, there were at
least 9 more.

Try getting opposing views, you might learn something. Granted it's easier
to swallow the pabulum the left wants you to swallow, but it usually is
based on half truths at best.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Roger McDodger" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575441.stm


Try something based on facts: Watch what happens if you type "Global
Warming myths" into your search engine. It's pretty obvious that there is
no proof.


**No proof? Really? Try this site:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

There are several things you should realise about this particular site:

* It is up to date (not SEVEN YEARS out of date).
* It is operated by the US government (the US government is run by George W
Bush).
* The information and conclusions are VERY conservative. The reality is
thought to be far, far more serious.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Roger McDodger" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575441.stm


Try something based on facts: Watch what happens if you type "Global
Warming myths" into your search engine. It's pretty obvious that there
is no proof.


**No proof? Really? Try this site:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

There are several things you should realise about this particular site:

* It is up to date (not SEVEN YEARS out of date).

Nothing has changed in 7 years. You have no idea when it was updated last.

Like you , I don't beleive everything my government tells me, especially if
it's at odds with science.

* It is operated by the US government (the US government is run by George
W Bush).
* The information and conclusions are VERY conservative. The reality is
thought to be far, far more serious.


The reality is you don't bother to read any opposing information.
The reality is that the atmosphere has cooled over the last 40 years.
The reality is that the same information being used to prove global warming,
was being used in the 70's to claim we;re heading for an ice age.
The reality is the computer models sued to prove global warming are no
better than random number generators.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Roger McDodger" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575441.stm


Try something based on facts: Watch what happens if you type "Global
Warming myths" into your search engine. It's pretty obvious that there
is
no proof.


**No proof? Really? Try this site:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

There are several things you should realise about this particular site:

* It is up to date (not SEVEN YEARS out of date).
* It is operated by the US government (the US government is run by George
W
Bush).
* The information and conclusions are VERY conservative. The reality is
thought to be far, far more serious.


--
More reality for you.

Worlds apart
Between the myth of global warming and the complex science of
climate change.

by Philip Stott


In any discussion of climate change, it is essential to
distinguish between the complex science of climate and the myth - in the
sense of Roland Barthes, or the 'hybrid', following Bruno Latour - of
'global warming' (1).


The latter is a politico-pseudoscientific construct, developed
since the late 1980s, in which the human emission of greenhouse gases, such
as carbon dioxide and methane, is unquestioningly taken as the prime driver
of a new and dramatic type of climate change that will result in a
significant warming during the next 100 years and lead to catastrophe for
both humanity and the Earth.


This, in turn, has morphed since 1992 and the Rio Conference on
the environment into a legitimizing myth for a gamut of interconnected
political agendas - above all for a range of European sensibilities with
regards to America, oil, the car, transport, economic growth, trade, and
international corporations.


The language employed tends to be authoritarian and religious in
character, involving the use of what the physicist PH Borcherds has termed
the 'hysterical subjunctive' (2). Indeed, for many, the myth has become an
article of a secular faith that exhibits all the characteristics of a
premodern religion, above all demanding sacrifice to the Earth.


By contrast, the science of climate change starts from the
principle that we are concerned with the most complex, non-linear, chaotic
system known, and that it is distinctly unlikely that climate change can be
predicted by reference to a single factor, however politically convenient
that factor. Above all, in approaching the science, as distinct from the
myth, it is necessary precisely to examine three questions.


First, is the climate changing? The answer has to be: 'Of course
it is.' Evidence throughout geological time indicates climate change at all
scales and all times. Climate change is the norm, not the exception, and at
any moment the Earth is either warming or cooling. If climate were ever to
become stable, it would be a scientifically exciting phenomenon. To declare
that 'the climate is changing' is therefore a truism.


By contrast, the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden
Age of climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate
'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron.
The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the
Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires,
than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred
to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who
question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate
change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm.


Secondly, do humans influence climate? Again, the answer is: 'Of
course they do.' Hominids and humans have been affecting climate since they
first manipulated fire to alter landscapes at least 750,000 years ago, but
possibly as far back as two million years. Recent research has further
implicated the development of agriculture, around 10,000 years ago, as an
important human factor. Humans influence climate in many ways, through
altering the albedo (the reflectivity) of the surface of the Earth, through
changing the energy balance of the Earth, by emitting particles and
aerosols, as well as by those hoary old favourites, industrial emissions.


In Russia, global warming has been likened to Lysenkoism

Here we encounter the second major difference between the
science and the myth. In fact, human influences on climate are
multi-factorial. Unfortunately, we know precious little about most of them.
My own instinct is that our ability to change the reflectivity of the
Earth's surface will, in the end, prove to have been far more important than
industrial emissions. After all, if Lex Luthor covered the Tibetan High
Plateau with black plastic sheeting, even Superman might have problems
dealing with the monsoons.


Thirdly, will we be able to produce predictable climate change,
and a stable climate, by adjusting just one human variable, namely carbon
dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human,
that drive climate? The answer is: '100 per cent, no.' This is the seminal
point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from
the central beliefs of the global warming myth. The idea that we can manage
climate predictably by minimal adjustments to our output of some politically
selected gases is both naive and dangerous.


The truth is the opposite. In a system as complex and chaotic as
climate, such an action may even trigger unexpected consequences. It is
vital to remember that, for a coupled, non-linear system, not doing
something (ie, not emitting gases) is as unpredictable as doing something
(ie, emitting gases). Even if we closed down every factory in the world,
crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw
four billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and
often dramatically. The only trouble is that we would all be too poor to be
able to adapt to the changes, whatever their direction.


Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, the myth is starting to
implode. The conservationist and Green guru Professor David Bellamy has
recently described the idea of global warming as 'poppycock'. Serious new
research at the Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is likely to
be a far more significant factor than emissions; Dr Bill Burrows, a
climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, has
concluded: 'Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human
effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major
contributor.'


The recent temperature 'spike', known as 'the hockey stick', has
been unmasked as a statistical artefact, while the Medieval Warm Period and
the Little Ice Age have been statistically rediscovered. Moreover, the
latest research has shown that there has probably been no real warming,
except that which is surface-driven. And in Russia, global warming has been
likened to Lysenkoism - a notorious episode in Soviet science featuring a
non-scientific peasant plant-breeder, named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko
(1898-1976), who became the leading proponent of Michurianism during the
Lenin/Stalin years. IV Michurin was, in turn, a proponent of Lamarckism,
from Lamarck, the scientist who argued for a now largely discredited theory
of evolution.


Accordingly, the predication of government, and United Nations',
policy for energy growth on the unsustainable myth of global warming is a
serious threat to us all, but especially to the 1.6billion people in the
less-developed world who have no access to any modern form of energy. The
twin curses of water poverty and energy poverty remain the real scandals. By
contrast, the political imposition on the rest of the world of our Northern,
self-indulgent ecochondria about global warming could prove to be a
neocolonialism too far.


Philip Stott is professor emeritus of biogeography in the
University of London, and blogs at EnviroSpin Watch.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Roger McDodger" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575441.stm


Try something based on facts: Watch what happens if you type "Global
Warming myths" into your search engine. It's pretty obvious that there
is no proof.


**No proof? Really? Try this site:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

There are several things you should realise about this particular site:

* It is up to date (not SEVEN YEARS out of date).
* It is operated by the US government (the US government is run by George
W Bush).
* The information and conclusions are VERY conservative. The reality is
thought to be far, far more serious.


Not by meteorologists who are the real experts.

--


Global Warming is not Scientific
Is Global warming a scientific theory or a belief?
There are many claiming to be "client scientists", yet (for some strange
reason) they don't realize that statistics is not science. Science requires
an experimental control. Statistics often provides a scientist a good idea
for a hypothesis, but correlations do not prove cause and effect.
Furthermore, a computer models are not an experiments in that they again can
not discriminate theories into true and false. (They may give one an idea
where to poke around, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and
should lead one to discount the source.)

Some things are unknowable. It is human nature not to accept that some
things are beyond reach of knowing, but it is often the case.

New - http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf shows more of the same
pattern of possibly fudged data.

The much hyped report from the EPA was made by people who's income depends
on the continued belief of a CO2 caused warming trend. What do people who
do not depend on there being a "global warming" problem say? The
meteorologists I've met (that don't have a political or economic
ax-to-grind), say that the only thing they have seen that is close to a
proven theory is that global temperature tracks solar output. As scientists,
they are careful to note that one should really wait a few more solar cycles
before even taking that to heart.

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
a.. First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by
humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes and geysers and other natural
sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate
that defies error analysis.
b.. Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically
real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands
of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a
great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the
error bands be?
c.. Third, there has to be a model that can predict the past (only then
can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the
upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.
d.. Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths
and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory -
a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking
scientific, just because things are measured to several decimal points it
means naught when there is no control or false logic.
e.. Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to
show no past periods of higher temperature. (The above paper pokes a big
hole in that one. The idea that we know the inferred data is simply wrong.)
We don't have accurate records of solar output from the past and we don't
know long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small
drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) is much better
accomplished with a solar output theory - yet even this theory fails to be
more than a theory for those who seeking the truth. See
http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
f.. Six, one really has to subtract the effects of variations of solar
output, and changes in land use (irrigation) from any temperature trends.
There are no antiquate models to do this with at this time.
All six of the above points remain serious problems

I remember reading a news article when I was in 5th or 6th grade by
"scientists" that predicted that we were going into a new ice age because of
man made pollution. I thought it was true and worried about it for years -
and followed every global climate article I got my hands on - until I
realized they didn't have any way to truly support the claims they were
making. Some of these same people are in the global warming business now.

Supporters of global Warming will say, "I've know of hundreds of scientists
with diverse political backgrounds (from all over the world) that have come
to the same conclusion", but taking polls on the opinion of people who's
income is tied to the existence of a problem is not science. A poll of the
best scientists of the year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the
sun at the center of our solar system. There is a quite different out come
from poll of other scientists about global warming, see
http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct. Neither poll has
anything to do with science

Supporters will further say, "Many of these scientists are established,
world-renowned, tenured professors who do research in numerous areas and
whose jobs are certainly not dependent on the existence of global warming".

But let us consider the peers of Copernicus; did their being "established,
world-renowned, tenured professors" make them right?

What would Richard Feynman say about Global warming?
For those of you who don't know, Richard Feynman was the physicist who was
not only closely associated with QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics), but also
wrote about the scientific method and scientific rigor. I first ask you to
read his bit about cargo cult science. Pay close attention for the part
about the oil drop numbers - and realize that it applies here.

When a hypothesis fails to explain the given data, it follows that it must
be abandoned. Non of the models I've read about can explain the lack of
elevated temperatures at higher elevation.

Feynman also became a bit of an artist on the side. This is important
because drawing depends more on being a good honest observer than on talent.
If you draw a picture and notice that the chin isn't where it belongs, it is
easier to overlook after one starts inking over the pencil lines. What makes
art art, is the way that it looks that isn't in the subject. It tells us as
much about the artist as it does the subject. The way slight distortions are
adjusted and blended in. Being a real scientist means we have to bend over
backwards in order to find our human distortions of the object we are trying
to draw conclusions about. This takes honesty and courage to report all
warts and wrinkles in the subject.

I am told that, "... meteorologists I know that are skeptical about global
warming are weather forecasters (not researchers) and have little expertise
in the science of climate change -- their jobs do not require it." Well if
changing weather isn't climate change what is it? Meteorologists are
trained to look at numbers trends and graphs and form conclusions about the
probability of future events. They know that seeing patterns in data can be
the playground of fools (are there any fool-proof computer programs that
accurately predict the stock market?) More importantly meteorologist's
experience has taught them to be very careful about making claims about the
future with limited data. Perhaps this experience has given them a better
feel for what is knowable than the global climate researchers? The
"science of climate change" has been quite wrong before when they were
predicting a "new Ice age". Real science requires something that is beyond
the combinations of a bunch of estimates plugged into human choice tainted
computer models.

Correlation does not show cause and effect - Limitations on what is knowable
The idea that because CO2 has gone up and surface temperatures have also
gone up means nothing. It is a correlation only in the sense that both
variables are headed in the same direction. A similar correlation exists
between CO2 and breast cancer. There is no cyclic variable in the global
warming studies. If CO2 had gone up and down 4 times and ground temperature
had followed - that could be interesting - but would only start to mean
something after 10 to 100 cycles. If CO2 had gone up and down several times
and global temperatures had followed there would be a meaningful
correlation, yet that would still fail to show cause and effect.

We've been told that "The atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen 30% since
the Industrial Revolution (~1780) and 18% since 1959". Yes, CO2 has
increased, and probably from man, but even that can not be shown
conclusively. In an open system It is entirely possible that other
variations of natural CO2 sources and sinks may be more responsible. There
could be natural sources of CO2 that have not been identified. In an open
system, there is no control of other variables, thus what we can know is
quite limited.

Atmospheric CO2 has (if I remember right) gone up fabout 60 ppm to 360 ppm
(not much at all compared to the greenhouse gas, water vapor, which averages
25,000ppm). Realize that we are talking about a change of 0.03% to 0.036% or
0.006%. The global warmers don't use these numbers instead they say it
increased 30% (for maximum rhetorical effect?). Over the same periods
specific humidity has increased several percent (possibly due to
irrigation?) see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/079.htm. Both CO2
and water vapor have similar emissivity so that any change in greenhouse
effect due to CO2 would seem to be swamped by the effect of water vapor.
This would also seem to explain the change at lower altitudes with out
effecting the upper atmosphere..

Atmospheric CO2 may have an effect, but there is no proof that man's
contribution as a source of CO2 (ESTIMATED at about 4%) is the reason it is
going up. It is entirely possible that it is going up due to natural
variation more than mans contribution - probably not - but the point is that
even this is not a scientific fact. I would guess it is probable. (BTW I
think we should be taxing oil imports (in place of income taxes) for other
reasons.)

Low altitude warming has not been established as anything historically out
of the ordinary. The data just isn't there to do this. At this time and into
the foreseeable future it is unknowable. Being unknowable is the heart of
the problem with "climate science". "Climate science" is not really science.
In real sciences the scientists first job is to prove himself wrong - that
is to list the numerous way that the results my be in error and how the
conclusions are limited. No forthright "bending over backwards" efforts are
made by the global warming proponents. Instead, there are efforts to state
things in emotional terms and a disturbing pattern of data errors that when
corrected always move in the same direction. (One would expect honest errors
to tend to cancel out over time.) When claims are made dealing with an open
system using correlations of data without knowable error bands, it fails to
be science. There is no way to separate out the increased use of
irrigation and the resulting increase of low altitude water vapor (very much
a green house gas). I've seen no numbers on historical global low altitude
humidity that could be a plausible competing theory. The correlation of
temperature and variations of solar output is ignored.

Good enough data may never be available; thus just not knowable. Opinions
on things unknowable are called beliefs Because of the inapplicability of
the scientific method when dealing with open systems, opinions on global
warming are beliefs in the realm of a sort of religious view and not even
close to scientific fact.

Open systems, like the stock market are the subject of randomness - and much
has been written about the "black swan" effect and the inability of
professional stock pickers to come out ahead of amateurs in the long term.
To infer a long term trend in what appears to be mostly noise - or
randomness is a game of chance at best. All that can possibly be determined
are floors of probability in an open system, and even those can be
misleading.

I failed to see even an estimate of the amount of error of natural emissions
of CO2 in the documentation from the EPA. The science I know of means you
figure the answer and then you do the hard part of calculating the minimum,
maximum, and probable errors. It is not possible in this case to even have
the real numbers of CO2 venting - thus we are again not looking at science,
but only speculation with numbers attached.

We are told that, "Carbon dioxide is measured directly at Mauna Loa in
Hawaii", but it is only one place and really an estimate and not a direct
measurement (can you imagine a pipe being installed to provide a
calibrate-able flow meter?) as are almost all of the numbers used in this
"science". That is why the satellite data is so important - it is the best
data available, has no micro-climate artifacts. The satellite data is the
only data that comes close to measuring anything that could be called global
temperature and not effected by microclimate and would be most difficult to
fudge. According to http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html the earth
as a whole seems to be cooling slightly.

But do you know what I see in that data? (And I'm really good at looking at
statistics) - NOTHING! Just some noise - noise that is higher than any
possible trend. You could pick selected start and end points to show either
cooling or warming. Take the long term temperature trends and track them
with solar output and there is a fairly good correlation. (I have seen this
data but can't find the graph now - if you have it please send it thisway?)
Will the new solar activity of Oct/Nov 2003 change solar output and cause
cooling? What are you willing to bet on it? Nothing? Ahh, so at least you
know what you don't know. Should we bet the future of a hydrocarbon based
economy?

To claim as a "fact" something from a trend who's amplitude (and direction)
can be changed by changing end points due to the noise involved not science;
it is politics.

Are the data and/or computer models tainted due to subconscious intentions?
Everyone has an agenda at some level. I assuming that you, the reader, is
not influenced by the popularity of the idea of Global warming and you have
really looked at the raw data yourself and made sure that no one was hand
picking start and endpoints of data sets and that non of these people
worried (even subconsciously) that if they failed to show the right result
they would fail to get new funding.

It is interesting that the only corrections I have seen with the global
warming proponents have lessened the effect. Were the errors reported in
"Energy and Environment" 11/03 the result of fudging the numbers? I hope
not, but they very well could have been from a subconscious hope. A
scientist's first job is to prove himself wrong. That isn't the way I see
this work approached

Let me illustrate: QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) is real science. The
theory was put in place and then controlled experiments were run against
it - the theory wasn't changed every time someone came out with a new test.
This is what real science is about.

With global warming you have a computer model of the largest physical system
on earth that has several uncontrolled inputs with huge error bands that can
interact in non linear ways. The model is simplified in many ways because of
the limits of computer power. You have emotional humans that decide on just
what compromises to make - and these choices can greatly skew the results.
Just the shear number of terms makes the output dubious at best.

I do believe that there are people writing global warming papers who just
don't understand the true nature of scientific induction and deduction and
are just honestly wrong. My work with electronic circuits modeled on
computers has convinced me that even the most honest scientists are quite
susceptible to subconsciously tailoring computer models to provide the
results one wants (I've fooled myself), (and electronics models are much
simpler and easier to test in the closed system of a test bench). Yet these
models are the basis for claims that would completely change the world
economy? This "bending over backward" that Feynman talks about is what is
missing from the global warming work.

The EPA's reference even lists Santer, who's 1996 Nature article using a
data set with fudged endpoints.

To make these claims without real science behind it also raises a moral
problem as the unintended consequences may be harsh on the poor people of
non developed countries.

I truly wish Richard Feynman was alive to day to comment on the scientific
vigor in global warming. Research can often look like science, yet fail to
be real science in the end.

It's been a disappointing summer for global warming alarmists.

Hollywood, Mother Nature and the media just haven't cooperated. Even with
the unusual situation of two successive hurricanes pounding Florida and
another bearing down imminently, global warming hysteria seems to be on ice
for now.

The summer began with so much promise for the climate control crowd with the
release of the global warming disaster movie, "The Day After Tomorrow."
While the movie made plenty of money, global warming activists wanted much
more than that. They hoped the movie would foment global warming hysteria in
the same way that "The China Syndrome" and "Silkwood" contributed to public
sentiment against nuclear power plants.

Instead, the movie was so over-the-top with implausible weather phenomena
that no one - not even the usually global warming-sympathetic media - took
it seriously. Then, unlike the movie, the real "day after tomorrow" turned
out to be pretty nice.

Across the U.S., summer temperatures were cooler than normal. Aberdeen,
S.D., experienced its coolest August in 115 years with an average
temperature seven degrees below normal (63.4 vs. 70.5).

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Roger McDodger" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575441.stm


Try something based on facts: Watch what happens if you type "Global
Warming myths" into your search engine. It's pretty obvious that there
is no proof.


**No proof? Really? Try this site:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

There are several things you should realise about this particular site:

* It is up to date (not SEVEN YEARS out of date).

Nothing has changed in 7 years.

**Of course things have changed in 7 years. The planet has warmed.

You have no idea when it was updated last.

**You are quoting information from 1997.


Like you , I don't beleive everything my government tells me, especially
if it's at odds with science.

**Good thing too. Why do you ignore the actual real science and prefer to
quote non-science sources?


* It is operated by the US government (the US government is run by George
W Bush).
* The information and conclusions are VERY conservative. The reality is
thought to be far, far more serious.


The reality is you don't bother to read any opposing information.

**Of course I do. None of it is backed by real science though. All of it is
backed by alternate political agendas. None can adequately explain the
rising temperatures in the Polar regions. None can explain the shinking ice
caps in these regions.

The reality is that the atmosphere has cooled over the last 40 years.

**Wrong and the real worry are the rising land and sea temperatures.

The reality is that the same information being used to prove global
warming,

**The reality is the Global Warming IS a reality.

was being used in the 70's to claim we;re heading for an ice age.

**Global Warming was already being mooted back in the 1970s.

The reality is the computer models sued to prove global warming are no
better than random number generators.

**Global Warming IS occurring. The actual MEASUREMENTS show this to be the
case. Computer modelling is used to show what MIGHT happen if GW continues
at the same pace.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" said:

**Global Warming IS occurring. The actual MEASUREMENTS show this to be the
case. Computer modelling is used to show what MIGHT happen if GW continues
at the same pace.

Better make that the entire western world, including me and my
gas-guzzling CX .......

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "