From: "Robert Comer" 

Interesting guy, a geologist that's tired of hearing people blame
everything on global warming and he's spot on on that, there is a lot of
people talking like that -- note that I have only argued average global
temperatures. 

I don't really agree that global warming isn't in the top 10 environmental
problems because the devastation it can cause is so huge, but I definitely
agree it's not the most important problem.

I certainly have no problem with this statement: "... - he says carbon
dioxide doesn't control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct,
linear way. ", but that also doesn't mean that it has no effect.

As for this statement: "Of course, that was long before anybody was
burning fossil fuels. So Giegengack tells his students they might want to
consider that
'natural' climatic temperature cycles control carbon dioxide levels,
not the other way around."

I would have to argue with him on that, simply because *we* were never here
pumping vast amounts of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the
atmosphere before and that just may upset his natural balance.

--
Bob Comer





"Joe Hunt"  wrote in message
news:90vjt2h92lib8t25fsgg2mpn4kvorjnstr{at}4ax.com...
> What do you think of this person's views?
>
> The article is a profile of and interview with this person.
>
> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/giegenga.html
>
> http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag
>
>
> "To determine temperatures and carbon dioxide levels in the distant
> past, scientists rely on what they call the 'proxy record.' There
> weren't thermometers. So researchers drill deep down into the
> Antarctic ice sheet and the ocean floor and pull up core samples,
> whose varying chemical elements let them gauge both the CO2 levels and
> the temperatures of the distant past.
>
> Gieg clicks a button, and three charts come together. The peaks and
> valleys of the Milankovi'c cycles for planetary temperature align well
> with the ocean-floor estimates, and those match closely the records of
> carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature indications from ice
> cores. So, the professor maintains, these core samples from the polar
> ice and ocean floor help show that the Earth's temperature and the
> levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been in lockstep for
> tens of thousands of years.
>
> Of course, that was long before anybody was burning fossil fuels. So
> Giegengack tells his students they might want to consider that
> 'natural' climatic temperature cycles control carbon dioxide levels,
> not the other way around. That's the crux of his argument with Gore's
> view of global warming - he says carbon dioxide doesn't control global
> temperature, and certainly not in a direct, linear way. "
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:45:10 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
>>> If it is part of a natural warming/cooling cycle, then it's unlikely we
>>> can do anything to affect it.
>>
>>I totally disagree with the premise that we can do nothing no matter the
>>cause for one, and we *have* contributed quite a lot of CO2 ourselves, so
>>saying we have had no effect is not looking at the facts.
>>
>>>At best we might be able to adapt.
>>
>>That's a defeatist attitude.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5