[ RadSafe ] The Great Global Warming Swindle

[John R Johnson]

Khalid

It is because global warming is causing the ocean levels to rise.

John
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. Khalid Aleissa" <kaleissa at kacst.edu.sa>
Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] The Great Global Warming Swindle


Although the topic is interesting but, I do not see any real relationship
between global warming and radiation protection?

Khalid

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of John R Johnson
Sent: 18 March, 2007 09:34 م
To: Kai Kaletsch; Otto G. Raabe
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] The Great Global Warming Swindle

Kai

I live in Canada also, and am concerned about global warming and the melting

of the polar "ice caps". Our house is over 100 m above sea level but houses
below us in Vancouver and in other cities on the three coasts are concerned
because they will be under water.

John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
Vancouver, B. C.
Canada
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kai Kaletsch" <eic at shaw.ca>
To: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] The Great Global Warming Swindle


>I agree with what Otto said and I'm not particularly alarmed about global
>warming. Living in Canada, its a bit of a stretch to try to convince me
>that shorter, warmer winters are a bad thing.
>
> However, given that we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I think it
> is a fair question to ask: How much would the temperature increase if we
> keep increasing our CO2 output at the current rate (assuming no change in
> solar activity etc)? Unfortunately, the global warming skeptics have not
> provided a quantitative answer. If the answer depends on inputs that we
> don't know, then give me a range of possibilities (and, if possible,
> probabilities).
>
> I don't like questions like: How much of our 0.2C temperature increase
> since 1940 is due to industrial CO2 releases?
>
> To some people, this implies that all individual contributing factors have

> to be less than 0.2C. Of course, this does not follow logically. You could

> have a 2.2C warming due to CO2, offset by a 0.2C cooling because of
> reduced solar activity (please correct me if I'm wrong, but, if I remember

> the graph correctly, the current level of solar activity is still less
> than the 1940 peak, while the current temperatures are higher) and a 1.8C
> cooling due to emissions that block sunlight. (For most of the time since
> the industrial revolution, we have emitted fairly little CO2 and lots of
> other pollution, like SO2 and particulate. In the west, we have only
> recently started to reduce these. Other places in the world are still
> emitting a lot of that stuff.)
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Otto G. Raabe
>  To: Blaine Howard ; Kai Kaletsch
>  Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
>  Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 3:23 PM
>  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] The Great Global Warming Swindle
>
>
>    March 17, 2007
>
>  According to MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the National Research
> Council global warming panelist and lead author on the new UN report: "Our

> primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and some agreement, the

> science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global
> mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago;
> (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two

> centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase
> is likely to warm the earth. But-- and I cannot stress this enough -- we
> are NOT in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to
> carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."
>
>  Unfortunately the press and those who wrote so-called "summaries" of the
> UN report did not understand or wanted to ignore how little is truly
> known! Sunspot activity does correlate almost perfectly with mean earth
> temperatures over the last 150 years, so it seems clear that it is
> unlikely that there is a meaningful anthropomorphic factor associated with

> the average temperature of the earth. Also, an increase of only 0.5
> degrees Celsius in 100 years is not alarming.
>
>  Otto
>
>
>  **********************************************
>  Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
>  Center for Health & the Environment
>  University of California
>  One Shields Avenue
>  Davis, CA 95616
>  E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
>  Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
>  ***********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/