[geeks] Global Warming causes...

[Mike Meredith]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:06:22 +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> However the BBC has it's own political agenda and follows it very
> carefully. 

Good! Everyone has a political agenda ... you do, I do, and the BBC
does. I'm glad they're following it carefully! I'm not going to blindly
trust *any* media outfit; I derive much amusement from spotting
inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

> Global warming is part of the BBC's agenda. The only U.K. station
> to say anything against it was "Channel 4". 

I've got some recollection of the BBC showing documentaries on
global-warming showing both pro and anti viewpoints in the past. 

> Despite what people have said here there is not a consensus about
> global warming, just a lot of it. 

We'll have to disagree on that one.

> The main source of "proof" was a
> NASA study, which recently turned out to be flawed. Once the Y2K bug
> was fixed, it turns out the warmest years in the last 100 were in the
> 1920's and early 1930's.

"The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some
 1-2% less warming than originally thought)"

Quoted from the first entry that showed up when googling for the
obvious words. Not the best method I know!

Even I know there is a great deal more evidence for global warming than
a graph from NASA showing _US_ temperatures over a century (roughly).
Don't you think that all those other places with temperature records
are likely to draw a little graph ? Or all those other places in the US
with access to US temperature data 

-- 
Mike Meredith (http://zonky.org/)
  "Spammers on the Internet are like hula hoops, pet rocks, or subway
   alligators; only incredibly fertile, incontinent, and able to fly.
And it's still illegal to shoot them, so bring an umbrella." SC, on
SPAM-L.