"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 6/20/10 6:22 AM, Moose wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he
defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is
more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is
where
we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings
are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we
have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about
dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate
solutions
that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it
is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more
closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if
we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the
numbers
you want, but that's a fact.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still
tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would
you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if
they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then
you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not
much
of a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.


Plume says the darndest things. "Human population is directly correlated
with activity." Yes dearie, humans call it sex."



Well, then, you apparently never had that activity, since you don't have
kids.
Apparently your logical thought processes stopped developing when you were a
three year old.