"Fran"  wrote in message
news:1192081218.327605.51670@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> At the UN Climate Change Conference this December in Bali,
governments
> must work with urgency and creativity to put a negotiating
framework
> in place. We need a new and comprehensive multilateral accord
on
> climate change that all nations can embrace. For all of us,
this is a
> defining moment. We all have a historical responsibility to
future
> generations. Our grandchildren will be our judges.
>

We've been through all of this before!
So what's new Fran baby?

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have
begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
drastic decline in food production - with serious political
implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in
food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from
now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great
wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North,
along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and
Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains
brought by the monsoon.



The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to
keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing
season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant
overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons
annually. During the same time, the average temperature around
the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that
in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the
most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148
twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion
dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.



To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the
advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The
central fact is that after three quarters of a century of
extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be
cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent
of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on
local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the
view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the
rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be
catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and
social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report
by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns
of food production and population that have evolved are
implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."



A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of
half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of
Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large
increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of
1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists
notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.



To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and
sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University
of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature
during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than
during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken
the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age"
conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and
northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames
used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice
and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as
New York City.



[.]



"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg
of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five
years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and
creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for
starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they
did during past famines.



Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take
any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or
even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more
spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice
cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,
might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the
scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are
even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or
of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into
economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the
planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with
climatic change once the results become grim reality.



The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975



http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
-- 

Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?