"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...


I doubt humans have caused global warming myself and if they have
Mother earth will shake it off and start over. The old saying goes we
do not own the earth, the earth owns us.

I've always found the statement "save the Earth" to be a bit naive. Fact is
the Earth will be here, flourishing with all sorts of healthy species long
after humans have disappeared from the planet.

Max

It is not a personal attack. Please show me where I attacked him in the
sentence. I think you're ascribing negative connotations to it. I could have
easily been referring to his cranium size.

The preponderance of evidence suggests and most reputable scientists agree
that human beings are the primary cause of global warming. Even Bush said
it.

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Please show me where I attacked you personally? I don't even know you,
but I can guess.

You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

That is your paragraph. And that's a personal attack.


You have not presented much in the way of "evidence."

Oh. Lloyd provided numerous references. I provided several. So far you
haven't provided any. Your point?

Global warming is happening. Human beings are responsible for much of it.
The ice sheets of the world are melting a lot faster than we originally
thought. Those are the facts. It's time to do something about it.

When presented with scientific facts that fail to support anything you've
claimed in the foregoing paragraph, you deem the scientists who generated
those reports to lack credibility, you attack the poster personally, and
you provide no evidence to the contrary beyond your own regurgitation of
the pop-science dogma surrounding global warming. Now give me one reason
why anyone would believe you over Lloyd?


Max

I haven't attacked anyone, but it sure seems like you are. You just called
me an environmentalist wacko, which I'm not.

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

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

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

A real gentleman would have carried on the conversation and answered the
question rather than allude to a personal attack. Any discussion with you
(by anyone) winds up with you flinging personal attacks. Is that the
hallmark of a gentlemen?

It's the hallmark of the environmental wackos who have nothing but their
dogma as a counterpose to verifiable scientific research that refutes, or
fails to support, their claims.

I have not attacked you in any way. I've presented factual scientific
evidence, for both sides no less, and somehow you feel threatened.

Life is tough enough already, why make it tougher?

When presented with scientific fact, they respond pretty much as Jon has.
Ad hominem attacks are rampant in any discussion of global warming, thanks
to a lack of credible evidence to support their claims.


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
...

Even Bush said it.

"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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
It is not a personal attack. Please show me where I attacked him in the
sentence. I think you're ascribing negative connotations to it. I could
have easily been referring to his cranium size.

The preponderance of evidence suggests and most reputable scientists agree
that human beings are the primary cause of global warming. Even Bush said
it.

All we're asking you to do is provide some references to that "preponderance
of evidence."

I tend to think you are inclined to accept whatever position happens to
agree with your personal brand of political dogma, without reviewing the
evidence for and against. In other words, don't confuse you with the facts,
your mind is made up.

Max

The Earth's climate cycles between long periods of ice age
in which the sea level is much lower than it is today, and in
which temperatures gradually rise, and much warmer climates.
Only 11,000 years ago the sea level was 400 feet lower than
it is today. Up until 150 years ago, the Earth was in cold
period that lasted three hundred years. Past Ice Ages have
nearly covered the Earth with the exception of a narrow
band at the Equator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Ice Age cycles are cause by a number of factors. CO2,
the Earth's changes in axial tilt, precession, and the location
of large land masses near the poles. Mankind has little
effect on the climate.

The Little Ice was caused by a combination of reduced solar
activity, and increased volcanic activity. Both of these factors
are beyond human control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Factors like undersea volcano's have proven dramatic effect
on things like melting the Ross Ice Shelf. Volcanic dust in
the atmosphere can cause a sudden shift downwards in
temperatures--not is a slow single degree per century rate,
but very fast drops in temperatures with widespread impact
on the climate.

One new theory has it that most human kind descended from
a small pool of about 1000 people 74,000 years back in time.
Analysis of mitochondrial DNA has revealed living humans are
strangely homogeneous genetically, presumably because they
originated recently from a small group or their ancestors
underwent a population bottleneck that wiped out most of
mankind.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/neander/neander.htm

This is interesting because there was a major eruption of a
volcano 75000 years ago that would have had Apocalypse
consequences. Both geological and biological evidence
support each other.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/...esia/toba.html

It was projected that another ice age should already have
started. Many feel that industrialization forestalled the "Little
Ice Age". Perhaps it did. It could easily have been an
increase in solar flux. The Sun is far more significant than
mankind. However one theory is that methane produced
by farming, not the burning fossil fuels has delayed the onset
of another ice age.

The Earth will be either cooling or warming. Given a choice,
a slight warming trend is preferable to a fast cooling one.
However, there is a theory that slow warming eventually leads
to the slowdown of the Global Conveyor which could causes
fast cooling--another Ice Age.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

So it seems that either we should have started a new Ice
Age a few hundred years ago, and we have been lucky
that global warming has postponed it, or perhaps that the
warming trend will lead to a shut down of the Global
Conveyor and this will lead to the fast onset of another Ice
Age.

The bottom line it that it will continue to get warmer, until
it gets much colder. We know that Ice Ages occur in just
a few short years. During the last ice age, ice covered the
area north of a line drawn between Cape May, New
Jersey and Seattle Washington. Here is a map showing
the typical coverage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...th_ice_map.jpg

Look at this chart. The next Ice Age has started. Smart
people are moving south or west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Max, instead of trying unsuccessfully to insult me, try typing in "evidence
for global warming" and see what you get. Here's one of 18 million links.
Good night and good luck...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
It is not a personal attack. Please show me where I attacked him in the
sentence. I think you're ascribing negative connotations to it. I could
have easily been referring to his cranium size.

The preponderance of evidence suggests and most reputable scientists
agree that human beings are the primary cause of global warming. Even
Bush said it.

All we're asking you to do is provide some references to that
"preponderance of evidence."

I tend to think you are inclined to accept whatever position happens to
agree with your personal brand of political dogma, without reviewing the
evidence for and against. In other words, don't confuse you with the
facts, your mind is made up.

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