G'day,
Making this an altmightly long reply but I missed something.
Four polar bears prove global warming? Title of my lecture. Where did you get the information about the polar bears. The populations of polar bears are increasing especially in areas of the Arctic where the temperature is increasing. They are decreasing in areas where the temperature is decreasing. Not a good example because any polar bear expert will disagree.
Coral reefs. Been around for hundreds of millions of years. They actually thrive in very hot world climate conditions but they have a whole bunch of cycles. Most coral experts suggest that coral reef damage is due to man-made pollution in rivers that flush into the areas where the reefs are. That is not evidence of global warming but it is evidence of man's stupidity.
Malaria. Global warming. No connection! Don't take my word, look at the experts in disease migration. Malaria is due to the intrusion of man into areas that we used to avoid because of malaria and due to such simple things as allowing the importation of used tires (tyres) filled with water that also contain the nasty little anopholis (have no idea how to spell this) mosquito. Do a google search and you will find that this is one of the worst examples of panic reporting done by global warming proponents and news reporters you will find. Telling lies does not help anyone's case (and I'm not saying they are deliberately lying, only that those that repeat this argument really haven't taken the time to confirm whether any expert in diseases actually agrees with it or not). Indeed, you wil find some very pissed off doctors because by blaming global warming the emphasis is taken away from really simple means to avoid the continuation of this spread, so repeating this falsehood endlessly is actually killing people. That is something I think is reprehensible. You don't make statements to help your argument that has the capacity to kill people without being very very sure of your facts. Dr Singer, a distinguished scientist in the field of climate science, has made this point many times, and is listened to less and less. If the risk is very small but the premiums very large or the possibility exists that real damage will be done by addressing such a risk, it is not a good idea to do so.
I'm sorry, but I have to say that using this as an example, if remembered by others, has the capacity for real harm and Mike, I do not for a second think, that anyone really wants to do this. I would really suggest you do a search on all the medical research about this subject before making such a statement again.
And one last thing, the article on solar magnetic fields to be blame for any global warming is not an argument that supports your views on global warming at all. That article was saying that it was all due increased solar activity. That was a news article but, according, to a whole bunch of research coming from solar experts, we have just this month entered a quiet phase which will last at least 50 years.
Regards
Richard
