[Vision2020] Global Warming

Joshua Nieuwsma joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:45:28 -0700 (PDT)


--0-77192110-1064346328=:50261
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Mr. Merrill,
 
if you want to check the credibility of Dr. Vardiman, you can look up his resume @ http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/vardiman.html. And if you want to look up his associates in the field and in his workplace, http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html is the place to go. I think if you read openly you will be amazed at the amount of learning and knowledge represented at ICR. Dr. Vardiman has been printed in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. As to your "direct contradiction" by mainstream scientists, in the page of the IPCC, I did not see all that many contradictions, except that their graph interprets the slope of the data points differently. He graphed direct temperature values, they graphed temperature values in respect to a 1960 average and a 1997 or something average. Which makes the graph look different. And he focused on United States temperatures, one of the main so-called "greenhouse gases" culpr!
 its. So
 his graph is in no way contradicted by theirs. He is merely saying that as far as the U.S. is concerned, there wasn't much of a temperature change in our area. And a far larger one would be expected if our cars and factories are one of the primary reasons for increased C02 levels. Maybe instead of us we should blame the completely unfiltered coal-burning Chinese peasants. 
 
Anyhow, my main reason for bringing these articles up (and I could always find others, since I know there are alot of scientists who disagree with the whole concept) is to show that Global warming is by no means a decided thing in the academic community. I personally expect the whole idea to have become a laughingstock in another 10 years or so. For one thing, we 21st century people are way too quick to jump to conclusions off of miniscule data. The ancients knew better. They used to be very hesitant to examine past events within a hundred years of them, because they knew that things that close are impossible to examine without a multitude of biases. I would argue the same about all this "data" floating out there. There isn't enough of it to conclude anything. We only have real data for about a hundred years, everything back before that is "projected". And it is impossible to project accurately back 1000 years. That's why the IPCC graph looks so gray. because there is so much
 uncertainty. We really need to wait until 2200 or so until we can conclude that the 1900's and 2000's were centuries of global warming. 
 
sincerely,
 
Joshua Nieuwsma
 
Troy Merrill <troy1@moscow.com> wrote:
Mr. Nieuwsma,
 
Dr. Vardiman may have more credibility if he were writing in a peer reviewed science journal, cited anyone but himself and colleges at the Institute for Creation Research, and if his results were not directly contradicted by mainstream scientists (see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm)
 
Troy Merrill




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-77192110-1064346328=:50261
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Merrill,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>if you want to check the credibility of Dr. Vardiman, you can look up his resume @ <A href="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/vardiman.html">http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/vardiman.html</A>. And if you want to look up his associates in the field and in his workplace, <A href="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html">http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html</A>&nbsp;is the place to go. I think if you read openly you will be amazed at the amount of learning and knowledge represented at ICR. Dr. Vardiman has been printed in the <EM>Journal of Applied Meteorology</EM> and in the <EM>Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. </EM>As to your "direct contradiction" by mainstream scientists, in the page of the IPCC, I did not see all that many contradictions, except that their graph interprets the slope of the data points differently. He graphed direct temperature values, they graphed temperature values in respect to a 1960 avera!
 ge and a
 1997 or something average. Which makes the graph look different. And he focused on United States temperatures, one of the main so-called "greenhouse gases" culprits. So his graph is in no way contradicted by theirs. He is merely saying that as far as the U.S. is concerned, there wasn't much of a temperature change in our area. And a far larger one would be expected if our cars and factories&nbsp;are one of the primary reasons for increased C02 levels. Maybe instead of us we should blame the completely unfiltered&nbsp;coal-burning Chinese peasants. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Anyhow, my main reason for bringing these articles up (and I could always find others, since I know there are alot of scientists who disagree with the whole concept) is to show that Global warming is by no means a decided thing in the academic community. I personally expect the whole idea to have become a laughingstock in another 10 years or so. For one thing, we 21st century people are way too quick to jump to conclusions off of miniscule data. The ancients knew better. They used to be very hesitant to examine past events within a hundred years of them, because they knew that things that close are impossible to examine without a multitude of biases. I would argue the same about all this "data" floating out there. There isn't enough of it to conclude anything. We only have real data for about a hundred years, everything back before that is "projected". And it is impossible to project accurately back 1000 years. That's why the IPCC graph looks so gray. because there is s!
 o much
 uncertainty. We really need to wait until 2200 or so until we can conclude that the 1900's and 2000's were centuries of global warming. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Joshua Nieuwsma</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><B><I>Troy Merrill &lt;troy1@moscow.com&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Nieuwsma,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dr. Vardiman may have more credibility if he were writing in a peer reviewed science journal,&nbsp;cited anyone but himself and colleges at the Institute for Creation Research, and if his results were not directly contradicted by mainstream scientists (see <A href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm">http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm</A>)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Troy Merrill</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com">Yahoo! SiteBuilder</a> - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-77192110-1064346328=:50261--