Subject:Who Exactly has caused Global Warming -- Tree
Hugging Environmentalists
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:53:45 -0700
From: "George" <geopell@hevanet.com>
I've been saying for a year or three now that global warming was caused
by the tree hugging environmentalists, that the reduction in pollution
has allowed more sunlight to reach the earth's surface and thus the temperature
has risen. In the March 16 issue of Science, NASA confirms what I
have been saying all along:
"GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS"
| "A new NASA study has found that an important counter-balance to the
warming of our planet by greenhouse gases – sunlight blocked by dust, pollution
and other aerosol particles – appears to have lost ground."
"The thinning of Earth’s "sunscreen" of aerosols since the early 1990s
could have given an extra push to the rise in global surface temperatures."
""When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth's
surface, you're going to have an effect on climate and temperature," said
lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(GISS), New York. " |
Read
the whole article here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom
/NasaNews/2007/2007031524529.html
And they all said I was nuts. Boy were they wrong.
Geo
Postscript from a liberal Oregon forum:
Subject: Fwd: Global warming fraud OK
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:13:26 -0400
From: stevescare@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: stevescare@aol.com
To: media@teleport.com; rob@oregoneducation.org
Cc: Jkarlock@earthlink.net; myz7@comcast.net; wardarch@gmail.com
Sent: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Global warming fraud OK
Here we have it folks. The first salvo from the left, that I have read,
which says it doesn't matter if the Global Warming hysteria has been a
fraud. They are still right and the policies are still needed.
The classic liberal mind.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 15, 2007 1:09:59 PM
I'm still unclear on the what the downside is of reducing our carbon
production, our energy consumption, and our impact on the environment.
Let's imagine for a moment that the deniers are right. So what? Is reducing
our carbon emissions a bad thing? They're arguing an academic
point.
| Note: E-RFDs are messages that circulate around the
internet. Some are factual and some are mythical. We make no
distinction between the types, here, but rather offer them pretty much
as they come in -- as examples of comment and rumor from a global mind. |
|