> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of James Heartfield
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:49 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Global Warming
>
>
> In message <NDBBKPODIHENIECLLPBIEECKCBAA.kmack at dimensional.com>, Kenneth
> Mack <kmack at dimensional.com> writes
> >I would like to know what evidence and thought you drew on to
> come to these
> >conclusions. I see one piece was from the Wall Street Journal. I
> would claim
> >that the WSJ is not a good source for understanding this subject.
>
> Are you disagreeing with the WSJ's breakdown of the numbers of those
> signing the Kyoto protocol? Presumably it's easy enough to check.
First, the question was, what evidence are you using to come to the conclusion that the science of global warming is... let's say artificial or fake or bogus, which is what you are saying, no?
Second, yes, I feel the WSJ is hardly a reliable source for balanced news on this issue. It may well be true that policy types worked on the final report but it is also true that ALL work done was reviewed by scientists before it went to publication.
>
> Mack <kmack at dimensional.com> writes
>
> >I'm not claiming that there aren't politics being played. I'm sure there
> >are. What cannot be said is that global warming theory is false.
> Sorry, the
> >physics are against you. The REAL scientific question is how does one add
> >greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere without affecting the
> radiative balance
> >of the earth?
>
> No-one I'm aware of denies climate change, the issue is whether climate
> change is due to industrial emissions, which seems far from
> demonstrated, no matter how many times you repeat it. That you hold it
> as an article of faith does not mean a great deal to me.
I do not hold it as an article of faith. I hold it as an article of science. If you do not understand how the greenhouse effect works and the role of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) please let me know, maybe we can go through the details. It is not faith that tells me that increased levels of GHGs can trap more energy, it is physics. If it is NOT trapping more energy then there needs to be a mechanism to explain it. There may well be a mechanism to explain it, what is it? And if so, why the warmer temperatures?
Kenneth Mack
>
>
> --
> James Heartfield
>