Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A76720322D94goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:65n0duF2frdmiU1
> @mid.individual,net :
>
>>>
>>>>> average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
>>>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
>>>>
>>>> Sounds bigger if you call it 3°F :)
>>>
>>> It would sound even bigger if you called it 50 F.
>>>
>>> But it's only 1.35 F.
>>
>> "Only" is relative. It doesn't sound like much, but it can be enough to
>> kill off entire species.
>
> OK, good. Now, let's find the exact temp needed to kill off
> all spiders, and work toward that.
>
> (And "only" meant "incontrast to 3 F".)
COLD is more likely to kill numerous species. Also, we're at about
380ppm/CO2, but at about 140-160ppm, most plants start to "suffocate".
Given that the MWP was quite a bit warmer than today, just how would those
species, all of which have been around for eons, die off?
IIUC, burning fossil fuels does not create NEW CO2: all elements on Earth
already exist and burning merely reforms them.
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A76720322D94goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:65n0duF2frdmiU1
> @mid.individual,net :
>
>>>
>>>>> average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
>>>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
>>>>
>>>> Sounds bigger if you call it 3°F :)
>>>
>>> It would sound even bigger if you called it 50 F.
>>>
>>> But it's only 1.35 F.
>>
>> "Only" is relative. It doesn't sound like much, but it can be enough to
>> kill off entire species.
>
> OK, good. Now, let's find the exact temp needed to kill off
> all spiders, and work toward that.
>
> (And "only" meant "incontrast to 3 F".)
COLD is more likely to kill numerous species. Also, we're at about
380ppm/CO2, but at about 140-160ppm, most plants start to "suffocate".
Given that the MWP was quite a bit warmer than today, just how would those
species, all of which have been around for eons, die off?
IIUC, burning fossil fuels does not create NEW CO2: all elements on Earth
already exist and burning merely reforms them.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A76638D5A9EFgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.91...
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in
> news:Misc-C0E3EB.07271304042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net :
>
>>> average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
>>
>> Sounds bigger if you call it 3°F :)
>
> It would sound even bigger if you called it 50 F.
>
> But it's only 1.35 F.
The European mini ice age that preceded the Rennaisance was caused by an
estimated 1 degree drop in the temperature of the Gulf Stream.
Paul
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A76638D5A9EFgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.91...
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in
> news:Misc-C0E3EB.07271304042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net :
>
>>> average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
>>
>> Sounds bigger if you call it 3°F :)
>
> It would sound even bigger if you called it 50 F.
>
> But it's only 1.35 F.
The European mini ice age that preceded the Rennaisance was caused by an
estimated 1 degree drop in the temperature of the Gulf Stream.
Paul
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Ken Dixon" <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:ft5c3k$tf1$1@news.datemas.de...
> Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the
> cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists
> have said.
>
> The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud,
> told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
>
> This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting
> some to question climate change theory.
>
> But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and
> they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
>
> The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on
> record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average
> surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
According to AGW theory, the temps at 3-6km are the ones that should rise,
not surface temps.
Also, revised numbers (once NASA corrected their data sets) showed the
1930's to be warmest.
And finally, the LONG TERM trend is COOLING; the trend since 1850 is the
only upward trend, that being the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
Okay...waiting for Paul's rationalizations.
"Ken Dixon" <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:ft5c3k$tf1$1@news.datemas.de...
> Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the
> cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists
> have said.
>
> The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud,
> told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
>
> This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting
> some to question climate change theory.
>
> But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and
> they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
>
> The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on
> record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average
> surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
According to AGW theory, the temps at 3-6km are the ones that should rise,
not surface temps.
Also, revised numbers (once NASA corrected their data sets) showed the
1930's to be warmest.
And finally, the LONG TERM trend is COOLING; the trend since 1850 is the
only upward trend, that being the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
Okay...waiting for Paul's rationalizations.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:hYrJj.44331$QC.37718@newsfe20.lga...
> According to AGW theory, the temps at 3-6km are the ones that should rise,
> not surface temps.
>
> Also, revised numbers (once NASA corrected their data sets) showed the
> 1930's to be warmest.
>
> And finally, the LONG TERM trend is COOLING; the trend since 1850 is the
> only upward trend, that being the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
>
> Okay...waiting for Paul's rationalizations.
Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
enough to take action?
Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
the climate.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:hYrJj.44331$QC.37718@newsfe20.lga...
> According to AGW theory, the temps at 3-6km are the ones that should rise,
> not surface temps.
>
> Also, revised numbers (once NASA corrected their data sets) showed the
> 1930's to be warmest.
>
> And finally, the LONG TERM trend is COOLING; the trend since 1850 is the
> only upward trend, that being the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
>
> Okay...waiting for Paul's rationalizations.
Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
enough to take action?
Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
the climate.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
Alex W. wrote:
> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
In those terms no.
> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
> enough to take action?
Certainly.
As long as I can remember I've been hearing about pollution and
deforestation. Most of the old industrialized nations are working on the
pollution problem, to varying degrees, while "emerging nations" get a
free pass. End result, nothing changes.
As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate
and they are our planets air filter system.
> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
> the climate.
Agreed.
What bothers me about this whole argument today are the frauds preaching
about carbon footprints and pollution all the while leaving behind huge
prints of their own and cashing in on the fear mongering by selling get
out of jail free cards (aka carbon credits).
Google carbon credits trading, it's a growth industry and it just smells
funny.
Alex W. wrote:
> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
In those terms no.
> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
> enough to take action?
Certainly.
As long as I can remember I've been hearing about pollution and
deforestation. Most of the old industrialized nations are working on the
pollution problem, to varying degrees, while "emerging nations" get a
free pass. End result, nothing changes.
As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate
and they are our planets air filter system.
> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
> the climate.
Agreed.
What bothers me about this whole argument today are the frauds preaching
about carbon footprints and pollution all the while leaving behind huge
prints of their own and cashing in on the fear mongering by selling get
out of jail free cards (aka carbon credits).
Google carbon credits trading, it's a growth industry and it just smells
funny.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Ken Dixon" <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:ft5lrm$9h8$1@news.datemas.de...
> As long as I can remember I've been hearing about pollution and
> deforestation. Most of the old industrialized nations are working on the
> pollution problem, to varying degrees, while "emerging nations" get a free
> pass. End result, nothing changes.
They get a free pass, but then, so does our industry. We impose stiff
environmental regulations on industry operating within our borders, but we
let them get away with murder if they simply shift their dirty operations to
these emerging nations. We could probably make a fair dent in our pollution
problem if we held our industries to the same standards abroad as at home --
and required any foreigner wishing to import their goods to do the same.
> As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate and
> they are our planets air filter system.
Ironically, deforestation has accelerated now that eco-biofuel has become
such a profitable proposition ....
> What bothers me about this whole argument today are the frauds preaching
> about carbon footprints and pollution all the while leaving behind huge
> prints of their own and cashing in on the fear mongering by selling get
> out of jail free cards (aka carbon credits).
> Google carbon credits trading, it's a growth industry and it just smells
> funny.
It smells funny and it is funny. It's a political fig-leaf: "look, dear
concerned voter, we're doing something!"
There are far more effective and easier ways to achieve huge gains.
The problem is that such measures tend to affect voters on an individual
basis. Carbon credit is nothing for Joe Shmoe to worry about, it's a
corporate issue that may possibly add a few cents to the end price. But
tell him to save energy by properly insulating his loft, and he will start
screaming blue bloody murder about the cost. Switching off unnecessary
lights in offices and homes could do more to reduce CO2 and pollution than
any carbon credit -- but how do we get people to do that?
"Ken Dixon" <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:ft5lrm$9h8$1@news.datemas.de...
> As long as I can remember I've been hearing about pollution and
> deforestation. Most of the old industrialized nations are working on the
> pollution problem, to varying degrees, while "emerging nations" get a free
> pass. End result, nothing changes.
They get a free pass, but then, so does our industry. We impose stiff
environmental regulations on industry operating within our borders, but we
let them get away with murder if they simply shift their dirty operations to
these emerging nations. We could probably make a fair dent in our pollution
problem if we held our industries to the same standards abroad as at home --
and required any foreigner wishing to import their goods to do the same.
> As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate and
> they are our planets air filter system.
Ironically, deforestation has accelerated now that eco-biofuel has become
such a profitable proposition ....
> What bothers me about this whole argument today are the frauds preaching
> about carbon footprints and pollution all the while leaving behind huge
> prints of their own and cashing in on the fear mongering by selling get
> out of jail free cards (aka carbon credits).
> Google carbon credits trading, it's a growth industry and it just smells
> funny.
It smells funny and it is funny. It's a political fig-leaf: "look, dear
concerned voter, we're doing something!"
There are far more effective and easier ways to achieve huge gains.
The problem is that such measures tend to affect voters on an individual
basis. Carbon credit is nothing for Joe Shmoe to worry about, it's a
corporate issue that may possibly add a few cents to the end price. But
tell him to save energy by properly insulating his loft, and he will start
screaming blue bloody murder about the cost. Switching off unnecessary
lights in offices and homes could do more to reduce CO2 and pollution than
any carbon credit -- but how do we get people to do that?
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
In article <ft5lrm$9h8$1@news.datemas.de>,
Ken Dixon <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote:
> As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate
> and they are our planets air filter system.
I'm pretty sure that rain is our planet's air filtration system.
(Hence: "acid", btw.) Did you know that there are over 1000 lightning
storms happening RIGHT THIS MINUTE?
Cool, huh?
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <ft5lrm$9h8$1@news.datemas.de>,
Ken Dixon <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote:
> As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate
> and they are our planets air filter system.
I'm pretty sure that rain is our planet's air filtration system.
(Hence: "acid", btw.) Did you know that there are over 1000 lightning
storms happening RIGHT THIS MINUTE?
Cool, huh?
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-FE15ED.20572004042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <ft5lrm$9h8$1@news.datemas.de>,
> Ken Dixon <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote:
>
>> As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate
>> and they are our planets air filter system.
>
> I'm pretty sure that rain is our planet's air filtration system.
> (Hence: "acid", btw.)
Ah, yes, the Acid rain hysteria of 10-15 years ago. Whatever happened to
that one? Found evidence of acid rain in Greenland ice cores from 100,000
years ago IIRC.
> Did you know that there are over 1000 lightning
> storms happening RIGHT THIS MINUTE?
MIsc, you you shut down your computer and take shelter.
> Cool, huh?
NO! HOT!!
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-FE15ED.20572004042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <ft5lrm$9h8$1@news.datemas.de>,
> Ken Dixon <kdixon2711@nospambellsouth,net > wrote:
>
>> As for the forests they're are still being cleared at an alarming rate
>> and they are our planets air filter system.
>
> I'm pretty sure that rain is our planet's air filtration system.
> (Hence: "acid", btw.)
Ah, yes, the Acid rain hysteria of 10-15 years ago. Whatever happened to
that one? Found evidence of acid rain in Greenland ice cores from 100,000
years ago IIRC.
> Did you know that there are over 1000 lightning
> storms happening RIGHT THIS MINUTE?
MIsc, you you shut down your computer and take shelter.
> Cool, huh?
NO! HOT!!
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
> news:hYrJj.44331$QC.37718@newsfe20.lga...
>
>
>> According to AGW theory, the temps at 3-6km are the ones that should rise,
>> not surface temps.
>>
>> Also, revised numbers (once NASA corrected their data sets) showed the
>> 1930's to be warmest.
>>
>> And finally, the LONG TERM trend is COOLING; the trend since 1850 is the
>> only upward trend, that being the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
>>
>> Okay...waiting for Paul's rationalizations.
>
> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
knowing what the actual problem is...
>
> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
> enough to take action?
No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
than what we are doing now...
>
> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
> the climate.
And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
cards...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
> news:hYrJj.44331$QC.37718@newsfe20.lga...
>
>
>> According to AGW theory, the temps at 3-6km are the ones that should rise,
>> not surface temps.
>>
>> Also, revised numbers (once NASA corrected their data sets) showed the
>> 1930's to be warmest.
>>
>> And finally, the LONG TERM trend is COOLING; the trend since 1850 is the
>> only upward trend, that being the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
>>
>> Okay...waiting for Paul's rationalizations.
>
> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
knowing what the actual problem is...
>
> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
> enough to take action?
No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
than what we are doing now...
>
> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
> the climate.
And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
cards...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
>> really
>> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
>
> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
> knowing what the actual problem is...
If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether or
not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright to
leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So why
should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and societal
behaviour?
>
>>
>> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible,
>> it
>> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
>> enough to take action?
>
> No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
> or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
> actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
> while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
> nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
> effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
> changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
> than what we are doing now...
Yes, that is a valid concern.
The problem with that approach is the risk that by the time we can prove and
quantify this potential harmful impact to everybody's satisfaction, it may
be too late to avert catastrophic damage. Oh, humanity would survive Global
Warming/Cooling, but civilisation might well die. The systems we have built
to sustain our lives are hugely complex and really quite fragile. A change
in average annual temperature by only a few degrees up or down would be the
end of agriculture as we practise it, no to mention cause climatic changes
which would make vast swathes of our temerate latitudes quite unsuitable for
our advanced civilisation. So the question is: can we afford to wait for
positive 100% proof?
>
>>
>> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
>> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or
>> so
>> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology
>> and
>> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the
>> cause.
>> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
>> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
>> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having
>> on
>> the climate.
>
> And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
> than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
> for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
> cards...
But we're not talking about making changes. We are talking about reversing
changes and actions already made.
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
>> really
>> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
>
> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
> knowing what the actual problem is...
If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether or
not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright to
leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So why
should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and societal
behaviour?
>
>>
>> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible,
>> it
>> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
>> enough to take action?
>
> No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
> or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
> actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
> while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
> nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
> effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
> changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
> than what we are doing now...
Yes, that is a valid concern.
The problem with that approach is the risk that by the time we can prove and
quantify this potential harmful impact to everybody's satisfaction, it may
be too late to avert catastrophic damage. Oh, humanity would survive Global
Warming/Cooling, but civilisation might well die. The systems we have built
to sustain our lives are hugely complex and really quite fragile. A change
in average annual temperature by only a few degrees up or down would be the
end of agriculture as we practise it, no to mention cause climatic changes
which would make vast swathes of our temerate latitudes quite unsuitable for
our advanced civilisation. So the question is: can we afford to wait for
positive 100% proof?
>
>>
>> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
>> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or
>> so
>> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology
>> and
>> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the
>> cause.
>> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
>> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
>> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having
>> on
>> the climate.
>
> And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
> than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
> for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
> cards...
But we're not talking about making changes. We are talking about reversing
changes and actions already made.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
>>> really
>>> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
>>
>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
>> knowing what the actual problem is...
>
> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether or
> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright to
> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So why
> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and societal
> behaviour?
That is separate from your original question. And it still matters.
The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there to say that
the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has a purpose,
that is the purpose.
It does not make any sense to pollute the water we drink or the air we
breathe, or even to litter, but when it comes to climate change, we do
need to know what is going on, and if we are doing something to help
it along it matters a LOT to know what, exactly, that is.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible,
>>> it
>>> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
>>> enough to take action?
>>
>> No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
>> or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
>> actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
>> while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
>> nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
>> effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
>> changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
>> than what we are doing now...
>
> Yes, that is a valid concern.
> The problem with that approach is the risk that by the time we can prove and
> quantify this potential harmful impact to everybody's satisfaction, it may
> be too late to avert catastrophic damage. Oh, humanity would survive Global
> Warming/Cooling, but civilisation might well die. The systems we have built
> to sustain our lives are hugely complex and really quite fragile. A change
> in average annual temperature by only a few degrees up or down would be the
> end of agriculture as we practise it, no to mention cause climatic changes
> which would make vast swathes of our temerate latitudes quite unsuitable for
> our advanced civilisation. So the question is: can we afford to wait for
> positive 100% proof?
>
Do we have a real choice, given the alternative? You can do nothing
and have a 50/50 shot of it being the right choice, or you can make a
change and have a 50/50 shot at it being the right choice. Makes more
sense to stick with the one you are already doing until such time as
you can show that it is wrong.
The average global temperature has not changed in 9 years. Perhaps we
are doing OK...
>
>>
>>>
>>> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
>>> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or
>>> so
>>> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology
>>> and
>>> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the
>>> cause.
>>> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
>>> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
>>> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having
>>> on
>>> the climate.
>>
>> And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
>> than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
>> for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
>> cards...
>
> But we're not talking about making changes. We are talking about reversing
> changes and actions already made.
No, that would be a change from what we are doing now. And,
potentially an expensive one (both in cost and in net effects). You
cannot reverse what has already been done. You cannot change history.
You CAN make changes going into the future, but you take a serious
risk of catastrophic results.
For instance, the current push for ethanol. In order to produce
enough ethanol to just run automobiles, we run a serious risk of
destroying our food supply. And people are flocking to the business
model to take advantage of government subsidies. You hear a lot of
good stories about South American countries that have completely made
the move to sugar-based ethanol. You hear less about the rainforest
destruction that has helped to make that possible. Which has a bigger
effect on the ecosystem?
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
>>> really
>>> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
>>
>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
>> knowing what the actual problem is...
>
> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether or
> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright to
> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So why
> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and societal
> behaviour?
That is separate from your original question. And it still matters.
The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there to say that
the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has a purpose,
that is the purpose.
It does not make any sense to pollute the water we drink or the air we
breathe, or even to litter, but when it comes to climate change, we do
need to know what is going on, and if we are doing something to help
it along it matters a LOT to know what, exactly, that is.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible,
>>> it
>>> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
>>> enough to take action?
>>
>> No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
>> or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
>> actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
>> while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
>> nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
>> effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
>> changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
>> than what we are doing now...
>
> Yes, that is a valid concern.
> The problem with that approach is the risk that by the time we can prove and
> quantify this potential harmful impact to everybody's satisfaction, it may
> be too late to avert catastrophic damage. Oh, humanity would survive Global
> Warming/Cooling, but civilisation might well die. The systems we have built
> to sustain our lives are hugely complex and really quite fragile. A change
> in average annual temperature by only a few degrees up or down would be the
> end of agriculture as we practise it, no to mention cause climatic changes
> which would make vast swathes of our temerate latitudes quite unsuitable for
> our advanced civilisation. So the question is: can we afford to wait for
> positive 100% proof?
>
Do we have a real choice, given the alternative? You can do nothing
and have a 50/50 shot of it being the right choice, or you can make a
change and have a 50/50 shot at it being the right choice. Makes more
sense to stick with the one you are already doing until such time as
you can show that it is wrong.
The average global temperature has not changed in 9 years. Perhaps we
are doing OK...
>
>>
>>>
>>> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
>>> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or
>>> so
>>> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology
>>> and
>>> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the
>>> cause.
>>> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
>>> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
>>> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having
>>> on
>>> the climate.
>>
>> And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
>> than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
>> for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
>> cards...
>
> But we're not talking about making changes. We are talking about reversing
> changes and actions already made.
No, that would be a change from what we are doing now. And,
potentially an expensive one (both in cost and in net effects). You
cannot reverse what has already been done. You cannot change history.
You CAN make changes going into the future, but you take a serious
risk of catastrophic results.
For instance, the current push for ethanol. In order to produce
enough ethanol to just run automobiles, we run a serious risk of
destroying our food supply. And people are flocking to the business
model to take advantage of government subsidies. You hear a lot of
good stories about South American countries that have completely made
the move to sugar-based ethanol. You hear less about the rainforest
destruction that has helped to make that possible. Which has a bigger
effect on the ecosystem?
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
news:slrnfvgucl.j4c.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
>> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
>>>> really
>>>> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
>>>
>>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
>>> knowing what the actual problem is...
>>
>> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether
>> or
>> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright
>> to
>> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So
>> why
>> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and
>> societal
>> behaviour?
>
> That is separate from your original question. And it still matters.
> The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there to say that
> the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has a purpose,
> that is the purpose.
Nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. What bothers me is that we do so
inefficiently, wastefully and with very little thought about the garbage we
create this way. It's bad
thinking, bad manners, bad politics, bad economics and bad engineering.
It's a denial of the consequences of our behaviour: our wastrel ways support
dictators, cause strife and wars, create false expectations and assumptions,
and collectively put burdens on our society which we as individuals deny.
>
> It does not make any sense to pollute the water we drink or the air we
> breathe, or even to litter, but when it comes to climate change, we do
> need to know what is going on, and if we are doing something to help
> it along it matters a LOT to know what, exactly, that is.
Look at the debate. Then tell me whether there is any evidence, any level
of proof which would be accepted as incontrovertible. Our climate is pretty
much the most complex system we know of, and this gives massive scope for
dissent and disbelief. There could be orchids growing in Nebraska and New
York City could be 50 feet underwater, and there woould still be people
saying "ah, but this was the state the continent was in during geological
period X, so this, too, is normal and nothing to do with us".
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly
>>>> responsible,
>>>> it
>>>> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
>>>> enough to take action?
>>>
>>> No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
>>> or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
>>> actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
>>> while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
>>> nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
>>> effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
>>> changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
>>> than what we are doing now...
>>
>> Yes, that is a valid concern.
>> The problem with that approach is the risk that by the time we can prove
>> and
>> quantify this potential harmful impact to everybody's satisfaction, it
>> may
>> be too late to avert catastrophic damage. Oh, humanity would survive
>> Global
>> Warming/Cooling, but civilisation might well die. The systems we have
>> built
>> to sustain our lives are hugely complex and really quite fragile. A
>> change
>> in average annual temperature by only a few degrees up or down would be
>> the
>> end of agriculture as we practise it, no to mention cause climatic
>> changes
>> which would make vast swathes of our temerate latitudes quite unsuitable
>> for
>> our advanced civilisation. So the question is: can we afford to wait for
>> positive 100% proof?
>>
>
> Do we have a real choice, given the alternative? You can do nothing
> and have a 50/50 shot of it being the right choice, or you can make a
> change and have a 50/50 shot at it being the right choice. Makes more
> sense to stick with the one you are already doing until such time as
> you can show that it is wrong.
But we're not standing still. We are piling up more pressure on the system
all the time, continually changing the equations.
>
> The average global temperature has not changed in 9 years. Perhaps we
> are doing OK...
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
>>>> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years
>>>> or
>>>> so
>>>> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology
>>>> and
>>>> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the
>>>> cause.
>>>> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
>>>> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
>>>> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are
>>>> having
>>>> on
>>>> the climate.
>>>
>>> And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
>>> than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
>>> for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
>>> cards...
>>
>> But we're not talking about making changes. We are talking about
>> reversing
>> changes and actions already made.
>
> No, that would be a change from what we are doing now. And,
> potentially an expensive one (both in cost and in net effects). You
> cannot reverse what has already been done. You cannot change history.
> You CAN make changes going into the future, but you take a serious
> risk of catastrophic results.
We can reverse processes, rates of increase/decrease.
If we are not sure about the effects, does it not make sense to stop adding
to the problem until we know what's going on?
>
> For instance, the current push for ethanol. In order to produce
> enough ethanol to just run automobiles, we run a serious risk of
> destroying our food supply. And people are flocking to the business
> model to take advantage of government subsidies. You hear a lot of
> good stories about South American countries that have completely made
> the move to sugar-based ethanol. You hear less about the rainforest
> destruction that has helped to make that possible. Which has a bigger
> effect on the ecosystem?
Heh. The German government just stopped the mandatory introduction of
biofuels because they discovered that a major proportion of cars can't take
the fuel ...
I agree, the current craze for biofuels is stupid and the unintended
consequences are less than ecologically beneficial. Does that invalidate
the underlying issue, though?
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
news:slrnfvgucl.j4c.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
>> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
>>>> really
>>>> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
>>>
>>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
>>> knowing what the actual problem is...
>>
>> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether
>> or
>> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright
>> to
>> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So
>> why
>> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and
>> societal
>> behaviour?
>
> That is separate from your original question. And it still matters.
> The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there to say that
> the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has a purpose,
> that is the purpose.
Nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. What bothers me is that we do so
inefficiently, wastefully and with very little thought about the garbage we
create this way. It's bad
thinking, bad manners, bad politics, bad economics and bad engineering.
It's a denial of the consequences of our behaviour: our wastrel ways support
dictators, cause strife and wars, create false expectations and assumptions,
and collectively put burdens on our society which we as individuals deny.
>
> It does not make any sense to pollute the water we drink or the air we
> breathe, or even to litter, but when it comes to climate change, we do
> need to know what is going on, and if we are doing something to help
> it along it matters a LOT to know what, exactly, that is.
Look at the debate. Then tell me whether there is any evidence, any level
of proof which would be accepted as incontrovertible. Our climate is pretty
much the most complex system we know of, and this gives massive scope for
dissent and disbelief. There could be orchids growing in Nebraska and New
York City could be 50 feet underwater, and there woould still be people
saying "ah, but this was the state the continent was in during geological
period X, so this, too, is normal and nothing to do with us".
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly
>>>> responsible,
>>>> it
>>>> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
>>>> enough to take action?
>>>
>>> No. Not if we can't give that effect any substantial quantification,
>>> or if we don't know what actual effect there is at all. Perhaps the
>>> actual net effect of human influence has been to cool the environment,
>>> while natural warming was occurring, thus counteracting the effect of
>>> nature a bit and giving ourselves more time. If we don't know what
>>> effect we are having, if any at all, it is irresponsible to make major
>>> changes that may have worse effects (unintended consequences and all)
>>> than what we are doing now...
>>
>> Yes, that is a valid concern.
>> The problem with that approach is the risk that by the time we can prove
>> and
>> quantify this potential harmful impact to everybody's satisfaction, it
>> may
>> be too late to avert catastrophic damage. Oh, humanity would survive
>> Global
>> Warming/Cooling, but civilisation might well die. The systems we have
>> built
>> to sustain our lives are hugely complex and really quite fragile. A
>> change
>> in average annual temperature by only a few degrees up or down would be
>> the
>> end of agriculture as we practise it, no to mention cause climatic
>> changes
>> which would make vast swathes of our temerate latitudes quite unsuitable
>> for
>> our advanced civilisation. So the question is: can we afford to wait for
>> positive 100% proof?
>>
>
> Do we have a real choice, given the alternative? You can do nothing
> and have a 50/50 shot of it being the right choice, or you can make a
> change and have a 50/50 shot at it being the right choice. Makes more
> sense to stick with the one you are already doing until such time as
> you can show that it is wrong.
But we're not standing still. We are piling up more pressure on the system
all the time, continually changing the equations.
>
> The average global temperature has not changed in 9 years. Perhaps we
> are doing OK...
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
>>>> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years
>>>> or
>>>> so
>>>> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology
>>>> and
>>>> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the
>>>> cause.
>>>> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
>>>> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
>>>> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are
>>>> having
>>>> on
>>>> the climate.
>>>
>>> And what if the changes we make end up worsening the problem rather
>>> than improving it? It is entirely possible that making a change, just
>>> for the sake of change, is what brings down the whole house of
>>> cards...
>>
>> But we're not talking about making changes. We are talking about
>> reversing
>> changes and actions already made.
>
> No, that would be a change from what we are doing now. And,
> potentially an expensive one (both in cost and in net effects). You
> cannot reverse what has already been done. You cannot change history.
> You CAN make changes going into the future, but you take a serious
> risk of catastrophic results.
We can reverse processes, rates of increase/decrease.
If we are not sure about the effects, does it not make sense to stop adding
to the problem until we know what's going on?
>
> For instance, the current push for ethanol. In order to produce
> enough ethanol to just run automobiles, we run a serious risk of
> destroying our food supply. And people are flocking to the business
> model to take advantage of government subsidies. You hear a lot of
> good stories about South American countries that have completely made
> the move to sugar-based ethanol. You hear less about the rainforest
> destruction that has helped to make that possible. Which has a bigger
> effect on the ecosystem?
Heh. The German government just stopped the mandatory introduction of
biofuels because they discovered that a major proportion of cars can't take
the fuel ...
I agree, the current craze for biofuels is stupid and the unintended
consequences are less than ecologically beneficial. Does that invalidate
the underlying issue, though?
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
In article <65rlcdF2giceoU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
> news:slrnfvgucl.j4c.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> > On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
> >> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> >>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
> >>>> really MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
> >>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
> >>> knowing what the actual problem is...
> >> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether
> >> or
> >> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright
> >> to
> >> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So
> >> why
> >> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and
> >> societal behaviour?
> > That is separate from your original question. And it still matters.
> > The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there to say that
> > the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has a purpose,
> > that is the purpose.
> Nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. What bothers me is that we do so
> inefficiently, wastefully and with very little thought about the garbage we
> create this way. It's bad
> thinking, bad manners, bad politics, bad economics and bad engineering.
Wouldn't it be interesting to learn, after additional study, that saving
the planet RELIES on us burning fossil fuels inefficiently...?
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <65rlcdF2giceoU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
> news:slrnfvgucl.j4c.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> > On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
> >> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> >>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it
> >>>> really MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
> >>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible to do so without
> >>> knowing what the actual problem is...
> >> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does not matter whether
> >> or
> >> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children that it's alright
> >> to
> >> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do? Of course not. So
> >> why
> >> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes to adult and
> >> societal behaviour?
> > That is separate from your original question. And it still matters.
> > The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there to say that
> > the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has a purpose,
> > that is the purpose.
> Nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. What bothers me is that we do so
> inefficiently, wastefully and with very little thought about the garbage we
> create this way. It's bad
> thinking, bad manners, bad politics, bad economics and bad engineering.
Wouldn't it be interesting to learn, after additional study, that saving
the planet RELIES on us burning fossil fuels inefficiently...?
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in
message
news:Misc-5994BB.08221706042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <65rlcdF2giceoU1@mid.individual,net >,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
>> news:slrnfvgucl.j4c.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> > On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
>> >> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> >>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible
>> >>>> behaviour,does it
>> >>>> really MATTER whether the global climate is cooling
>> >>>> or warming?
>
>> >>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible
>> >>> to do so without
>> >>> knowing what the actual problem is...
>
>> >> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does
>> >> not matter whether
>> >> or
>> >> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children
>> >> that it's alright
>> >> to
>> >> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do?
>> >> Of course not. So
>> >> why
>> >> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes
>> >> to adult and
>> >> societal behaviour?
>
>> > That is separate from your original question. And it
>> > still matters.
>> > The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there
>> > to say that
>> > the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has
>> > a purpose,
>> > that is the purpose.
>
>> Nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. What bothers me
>> is that we do so
>> inefficiently, wastefully and with very little thought
>> about the garbage we
>> create this way. It's bad
>> thinking, bad manners, bad politics, bad economics and
>> bad engineering.
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting to learn, after additional
> study, that saving
> the planet RELIES on us burning fossil fuels
> inefficiently...?
"Save the planet! Drive V10 cars!"
An amusing conceit for a science fiction story, but
considering that we have been burning those fossil fuels on
an industrial scale for only the past hundred of our 15,000
year history (give or take a millennium and sod the Biblical
literalists), it's really highly unlikely.....
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in
message
news:Misc-5994BB.08221706042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <65rlcdF2giceoU1@mid.individual,net >,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
>> news:slrnfvgucl.j4c.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> > On 2008-04-05, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote in message
>> >> news:slrnfvdhhk.r2.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> >>> On 2008-04-04, Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >>>> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible
>> >>>> behaviour,does it
>> >>>> really MATTER whether the global climate is cooling
>> >>>> or warming?
>
>> >>> Yes. If you are to fix a problem, it is impossible
>> >>> to do so without
>> >>> knowing what the actual problem is...
>
>> >> If your behaviour is wrong in the first place, it does
>> >> not matter whether
>> >> or
>> >> not it creates a problem. Do you teach your children
>> >> that it's alright
>> >> to
>> >> leave a mess wherever they go and whatever they do?
>> >> Of course not. So
>> >> why
>> >> should it be acceptable to do just that when it comes
>> >> to adult and
>> >> societal behaviour?
>
>> > That is separate from your original question. And it
>> > still matters.
>> > The earth is a producer of fossil fuels. What is there
>> > to say that
>> > the burning of those fuels is wrong? If everything has
>> > a purpose,
>> > that is the purpose.
>
>> Nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. What bothers me
>> is that we do so
>> inefficiently, wastefully and with very little thought
>> about the garbage we
>> create this way. It's bad
>> thinking, bad manners, bad politics, bad economics and
>> bad engineering.
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting to learn, after additional
> study, that saving
> the planet RELIES on us burning fossil fuels
> inefficiently...?
"Save the planet! Drive V10 cars!"
An amusing conceit for a science fiction story, but
considering that we have been burning those fossil fuels on
an industrial scale for only the past hundred of our 15,000
year history (give or take a millennium and sod the Biblical
literalists), it's really highly unlikely.....
Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
In article <65n1u6F2ggv2sU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
Nope. As we've all (all us anti-global-warming nuts) said a zillion
times: you STILL shouldn't pollute the planet! It's just that
not-polluting has nothing, whatsoever, to do with global warming.
> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
> enough to take action?
If it were true, it might be. But I still challenge your premise.
Human activity has no measurable impact -- none, whatsoever! -- on the
global climate. We could not, even if all 6B+ of us worked together in
perfect harmony, change the global climate in any lasting, significant
way.
My proof/science is 3x as valid as yours. Hence, I'm right :)
> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
Well, maybe not "*any* change", but I think I get what you mean...
> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
> the climate.
On the plus side: done! Our impact on the climate has been minimized!
(See above.) Now we can get on with solving REAL problems with REAL
human causes...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <65n1u6F2ggv2sU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Question: in terms of environmentally responsible behaviour,does it really
> MATTER whether the global climate is cooling or warming?
Nope. As we've all (all us anti-global-warming nuts) said a zillion
times: you STILL shouldn't pollute the planet! It's just that
not-polluting has nothing, whatsoever, to do with global warming.
> Supplementary question: even if human activity is not wholly responsible, it
> surely is a contributory factor to climate change. Is that not reason
> enough to take action?
If it were true, it might be. But I still challenge your premise.
Human activity has no measurable impact -- none, whatsoever! -- on the
global climate. We could not, even if all 6B+ of us worked together in
perfect harmony, change the global climate in any lasting, significant
way.
My proof/science is 3x as valid as yours. Hence, I'm right :)
> Also consider this: in the end, who or what is responsible is really
> immaterial. The industrialised nations have spent the past 100 years or so
> building up a vast and intricately interconnected system of technology and
> trade which will be seriously disrupted by any change, whatever the cause.
Well, maybe not "*any* change", but I think I get what you mean...
> We should be doing everything we can to protect this our collective
> investment in every manner we can think of -- and this would certainly
> include cleaning up our act and minimising whatever impact we are having on
> the climate.
On the plus side: done! Our impact on the climate has been minimized!
(See above.) Now we can get on with solving REAL problems with REAL
human causes...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
