Global Warming

["Robert A. Jones" <raj6582@acs.tamu.edu>]

> I don't get it. Where are you getting your information from?  Yes, the
> doomsday warnings of very large global warming were exaggerated, but my
> interpretation of the data is that statistically significant global warming
> has been observed, and that the theory of the greenhouse effect is based on
> sound scientific principles, although the details are uncertain.  Am I off
> base?
> 
> Stay safe, mike (mcnaught@LANL.GOV)


My information is from my brain, yes, I am trying to use logic in an 
emotional argument.  You admit that doomsday warnings are exaggerated,and 
even say that the details are uncertain, but try to defend it because it 
is based on sound scientific principles.  This sounds like 
sociologists claiming that their field is a science because they use 
the scientific method.  My answer to that is, I am a gourmet chef 
because I use measuring cups.  You can see why better standards are 
needed, and why scientists need to heavily scrutinize scientific 
results with logic.

Why are we spending BILLIONS on sound scientific principles that are 
greatly exaggerated and which details are unclear?  When observing global 
warming "data," I have yet to see error analysis.  The "data" show that 
there is about a one degree increase in "global" temperatures.  Have the 
measurement points always been the same?  Have the measuring equipment 
been the same - since whatever time frame - say 50 years ago.  Have 
volcanoes been taken to account for any temperature changes - i.e. Mt 
Penatubo and Mt St. Helens? The only Global temp. readings that I would 
believe are satellite measurements of Global temperatures.  How many 
years have global temperatures really been taken folks?  We need to 
have very high standards in science.  Global warming may be a reality, 
but all the "proof" that I have seen has been GARBAGE, and yes, junk 
science.

Robert A. Jones
RAJ6582@acs.tamu.edu 

Please respond to this with fact and not emotion.  Make me agree with 
you.