On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
yareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ayareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less
than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political
will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same
thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

That's one serious case of denial you've got there. You might want to look
for an ointment.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:56:14 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news:OeydnZdp1v1tjPjUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@posted. bayareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less
than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political
will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same
thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

That's one serious case of denial you've got there. You might want to look
for an ointment.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite history.

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.

KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.

"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be
studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If
you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If
you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

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


That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing planet.
That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction to coastal
flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep the oceans from
rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a national disaster, but
chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to modify our environment
only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept that the Earth itself is
far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its changes.

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.


At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be
studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If
you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?


Well it seems that Free Enterprise is recognizing the economic impact of
GW. Insurance companies are feeling its sting. See below article. I
think this argues for (proves?) an economic link. And since insurance
agencies are essentially in the business of predicting the future
(actuarial tables) then I would think they would represent the free
markets best predictions.

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

May 17, 2006

American International Group has joined the ranks of major insurers
committed to doing something about the increased risks the industry
faces due to climate change.
Advertisement


In a newly issued statement, the company said it "is actively seeking to
incorporate environmental and climate change considerations across its
businesses, focusing on the development of products and services to help
AIG and its clients respond to the worldwide drive to cut greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions."

Companies such as Munich Re and Swiss Re have long endorsed programs and
research aimed at finding solutions to what increasingly appears to be a
major threat facing the worldwide insurance community. AIG would appear
to be the first major U.S.-based insurer to do so.

"Climate change is increasingly recognized as an ongoing, significant
global environmental problem with potential risks to the global economy
and ecology, and to human health and wellbeing," the statement
continued. "AIG recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change
is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities
that have led to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
earth's atmosphere. At the same time, market-based environmental
policies and potential new investments provide business opportunities
for AIG to address the problem. We will pursue these new opportunities
where we have the expertise and capacity to do so in ways that mutually
benefit AIG, its shareholders, employees, customers, and the global
community."

The full text is available on AIG's Website - www.aig.corporate.com, but
it's not prominently displayed. Locate "Corporate Responsibility, "
under that "environmental initiatives," go to the bottom to "Environment
and Climate Change."

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:39:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is
ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite
history.

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.


Your memory is either faulty or selective.

The "Global Cooling" you remember was caused by an observable hole in
the ozone layer, created by the widespread indiscriminate use of
fluorocarbons. The ozone layer is needed because it is what enables
the greenhouse effect, which helps keep the surface temps where they
are. If we hadn't done something about it, the hole would have
eventually gotten bigger to the point where the earth would not be
able to maintain even temperatures. That problem was clearly man
made. That's why things such as Freon are no longer in production. The
Ozone layer has subsequently recovered, because earthlings stopped
destroying it. Now we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere that
the greenhouse effect has strengthened beyond design specs. Too much
greenhouse effect is as bad, or worse than too little. It needs to be
"just right", which it was until we screwed it up.


There are too many logical and factual flaws in your argument for me to
address them all, so I won't even try. But you might want to do some
research on the Montreal Protocol and the current state of the "ozone hole."

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective. There is no "normal and natural" climate on this planet. The
entire planet is in a constant state of flux -- we humans just happen to be
comfortable with the current climate and so we want to keep it this way. But
in doing so, we are fighting every natural process on Earth. Global Climate
Change is the norm, not an anomoly.

KLC Lewis wrote:

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective.

I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse
gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths
during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the
living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference
between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris
to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight
variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what
we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are
responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this
earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes,
clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in
swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond
our control short of a nuclear war.