Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or inclination
to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree in 100 years.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day. Every
credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and we need
to get to it now.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing and
try nothing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, it's pretty clear that you don't believe that global warming is
happening and that we can do something about it.

I know you directed this to Lloyd, but I hope you'll accept my answer,
too.

I believe that global warming *is* happening, and I do believe that the
net effects of human inhabitation are at least part of the cause. The
best prediction by most scientists is that the mean temp of the Earth will
rise by less than 1 degree F by the year 2100. What no one knows is
whether one degree will be signficant enough to cause the sort of
potentially catastrophic effects that may imperil our existence. My point
is--we know almost nothing about the potential effects of global warming.
How are we supposed to know how to curb the process? Literally every
attempt by man to control major global climatic effects has been a dismal
failure. For example, some recommend efforts to reduce the level of CO2
in the atmosphere, but we *do* know that CO2 is necessary for plant life,
and that reducing it may result in a significant reduction of global
foliage, causing a rapid increase in temperature. Conundrum.

So, good for you. Perhaps you should post a few dozen more links... like
I'm going to take the time out of my busy schedule! Bwahahahahaaaaa

Ah, so you aren't worried about global warming. Okay.

Not to worry--we'll all be long gone anyway when the next ice age hits in
about 2000 years.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or inclination
to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and we
need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might actually
make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at controlling climate
have done heretofore.

Max

I don't have to do either. I don't have the time to do your research for
you, and since you're not my dad, I don't have to agree to shut up.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or
inclination to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree
in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and
we need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might
actually make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at
controlling climate have done heretofore.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
..com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or
inclination to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree
in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and
we need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might
actually make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at
controlling climate have done heretofore.

I don't have to do either. I don't have the time to do your research for
you, and since you're not my dad, I don't have to agree to shut up.

Well, that does it, Jon--you aren't invited to my birthday party. So there.

Max

But, I can still wish you a good one! :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or
inclination to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree
in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and
we need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might
actually make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at
controlling climate have done heretofore.

I don't have to do either. I don't have the time to do your research for
you, and since you're not my dad, I don't have to agree to shut up.

Well, that does it, Jon--you aren't invited to my birthday party. So
there.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After Tomorrow?


Dumb as it sounds that's prolly as good as any )c:

Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists. I believe their concern was that it was too "Hollywood" to be
taken seriously. And, obviously many things in the movie are just Hollywood
flash.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?


Dumb as it sounds that's prolly as good as any )c:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not be.
It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see anything
of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or their
children.

Max

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory also.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not
be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see
anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or
their children.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not
be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see
anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or
their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

A theory is something that cannot be proven by observable facts or
experimentation. So far scientists haven't been able to prove anything
w/r/t global warming. Some claim that the surface of the Earth is indeed
warming and attempt to attribute it to human activities (which is probably
the case), but there are far too many variable to control to make that leap
of judgment. So they refer to the concept of GW as a theory. Of course
most people who choose to believe that we're on the verge of rendering the
planet uninhabitable tend to overlook that word when reading scientific
reports or preaching their chosen brand of dogma.

Max