I recently read a pretty good book about the Climate Change argument.
And there is also some pretty interesting research out there if you are
looking for information.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate
Change Debate Greg Craven

The thrust is not to tell you what will happen but to help people
navigate their way through all the claims and counter claims. He offers
a simplified risk analysis approach to the topic. He also offers his
own personal opinion on the matter. I suggest you read it. It's an
easy read and the technique is useful in a lot of other areas besides.

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned and
enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.

As to my personal opinion - Playing the global warming game is dangerous
and should not be done lightly. If, in fact, GW is a hoax and there is
nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up or environment
and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the cost of a recession.

If, on the other hand, the worst fears of global warming are realized,
well then we have just really, really screwed all our grandchildren.

You realize that, at our average age, we have little to loose
personally. We can afford to be flippant. Tell that to a 3rd grader.

Cheers

Here are a couple of links if you are interested


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032586/
http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html
http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...-3188/Overview
assets.panda.org/downloads/2_vs_3_degree_impacts_28sep06.pdf
assets.panda.org/downloads/climatesolutionweb.pdf
http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/foot.../climate_deal/

hpeer wrote:
I recently read a pretty good book about the Climate Change argument.
And there is also some pretty interesting research out there if you are
looking for information.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate
Change Debate Greg Craven

The thrust is not to tell you what will happen but to help people
navigate their way through all the claims and counter claims. He offers
a simplified risk analysis approach to the topic. He also offers his
own personal opinion on the matter. I suggest you read it. It's an
easy read and the technique is useful in a lot of other areas besides.

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned and
enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.

As to my personal opinion - Playing the global warming game is dangerous
and should not be done lightly. If, in fact, GW is a hoax and there is
nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up or environment
and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the cost of a recession.

The worst that may happen by "cleaning up the environment" is much worse
than that, and is in fact almost entirely unaddressed by anyone. How
much less CO2 production will it take to change anything? No one knows.
Will it results in massive unemployment and economic hardship, a radical
change in lifestyle and great decrease in quality of life? No one knows.
But, the radical greens don't care, right? Their agenda is something
akin to setting technology back a hundred years or so, with no
consideration for how much suffering it would cause anyone, right? I
mean, you're all sympathetic to that idea, right?

So don't pretend that the worst case scenario is just a little cleanup
and increased gas mileage of cars.

Stephen

Stephen Trapani wrote:
hpeer wrote:
I recently read a pretty good book about the Climate Change argument.
And there is also some pretty interesting research out there if you
are looking for information.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the
Climate Change Debate Greg Craven

The thrust is not to tell you what will happen but to help people
navigate their way through all the claims and counter claims. He
offers a simplified risk analysis approach to the topic. He also
offers his own personal opinion on the matter. I suggest you read
it. It's an easy read and the technique is useful in a lot of other
areas besides.

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned and
enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.

As to my personal opinion - Playing the global warming game is
dangerous and should not be done lightly. If, in fact, GW is a hoax
and there is nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up
or environment and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the cost
of a recession.

The worst that may happen by "cleaning up the environment" is much worse
than that, and is in fact almost entirely unaddressed by anyone. How
much less CO2 production will it take to change anything? No one knows.
Will it results in massive unemployment and economic hardship, a radical
change in lifestyle and great decrease in quality of life? No one knows.
But, the radical greens don't care, right? Their agenda is something
akin to setting technology back a hundred years or so, with no
consideration for how much suffering it would cause anyone, right? I
mean, you're all sympathetic to that idea, right?

So don't pretend that the worst case scenario is just a little cleanup
and increased gas mileage of cars.

Stephen

No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that
likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

"hpeer" wrote in message
...
No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that likely?
I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere
would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred
thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it currently
is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much colder
again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life adapts.

--
KLC Lewis

WISCONSIN
Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

KLC Lewis wrote:
"hpeer" wrote in message
...
No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that likely?
I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere
would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred
thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it currently
is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much colder
again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life adapts.


I hate it when people are reasonable. I'd much rather find some crap,
pro or con, on the internet where it has to be true cause it's on the
internet
Gordon

KLC Lewis wrote:
"hpeer" wrote in message
...
No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that likely?
I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere
would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred
thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it currently
is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much colder
again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life adapts.

It is certainly reassuring that life will continue on Earth after humans
are gone.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
"hpeer" wrote in message
...
No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that
likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

If it wasn't for Global Climate Change, most of the northern hemisphere
would still be covered in glaciers, and humans would number a few hundred
thousand hunter-gatherers. The Earth has been MUCH warmer than it
currently is in this current interglacial period, and it WILL become much
colder again. The only constant when it comes to climate is change. Life
adapts.

It is certainly reassuring that life will continue on Earth after humans
are gone.

While your conclusion was not my point, it is correct. Nevertheless, human
life is not going to disappear from this planet because of global climate
change. Modern humans have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. In
all that time, do you think we have not seen temperatures much hotter, and
much colder, than we now experience?

Some areas may become less habitable. Other areas may become more habitable.
Sea levels will continue to rise (as they've been doing for 12,000 years)
and some areas will receive more rainfall while others receive less. The
error lies in thinking that the Earth must remain changeless because we're
here and we (some of us) like the status quo. Sealevel must remain where it
is because I built a house on the beach! Help! A global catastrophe
approaches!

That life which refuses to adapt gets a swimming lesson.

--
KLC Lewis

WISCONSIN
Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

When was the Earth hotter and what was the results? Are you talking
Dinosaur age? Just curious. It's fact, man has prospered during warm spells.
G



While your conclusion was not my point, it is correct. Nevertheless, human
life is not going to disappear from this planet because of global climate
change. Modern humans have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. In
all that time, do you think we have not seen temperatures much hotter, and
much colder, than we now experience?

Some areas may become less habitable. Other areas may become more habitable.
Sea levels will continue to rise (as they've been doing for 12,000 years)
and some areas will receive more rainfall while others receive less. The
error lies in thinking that the Earth must remain changeless because we're
here and we (some of us) like the status quo. Sealevel must remain where it
is because I built a house on the beach! Help! A global catastrophe
approaches!

That life which refuses to adapt gets a swimming lesson.

hpeer wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
hpeer wrote:
I recently read a pretty good book about the Climate Change argument.
And there is also some pretty interesting research out there if you
are looking for information.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the
Climate Change Debate Greg Craven

The thrust is not to tell you what will happen but to help people
navigate their way through all the claims and counter claims. He
offers a simplified risk analysis approach to the topic. He also
offers his own personal opinion on the matter. I suggest you read
it. It's an easy read and the technique is useful in a lot of other
areas besides.

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned
and enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.

As to my personal opinion - Playing the global warming game is
dangerous and should not be done lightly. If, in fact, GW is a hoax
and there is nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up
or environment and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the
cost of a recession.

The worst that may happen by "cleaning up the environment" is much
worse than that, and is in fact almost entirely unaddressed by anyone.
How much less CO2 production will it take to change anything? No one
knows. Will it results in massive unemployment and economic hardship,
a radical change in lifestyle and great decrease in quality of life?
No one knows. But, the radical greens don't care, right? Their agenda
is something akin to setting technology back a hundred years or so,
with no consideration for how much suffering it would cause anyone,
right? I mean, you're all sympathetic to that idea, right?

So don't pretend that the worst case scenario is just a little cleanup
and increased gas mileage of cars.

Stephen

No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that
likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

We were talking about the worst case scenario, if we take global warming
seriously and really reduce CO2 emissions.

Stephen

hpeer wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
hpeer wrote:
I recently read a pretty good book about the Climate Change argument.
And there is also some pretty interesting research out there if you
are looking for information.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the
Climate Change Debate Greg Craven

The thrust is not to tell you what will happen but to help people
navigate their way through all the claims and counter claims. He
offers a simplified risk analysis approach to the topic. He also
offers his own personal opinion on the matter. I suggest you read
it. It's an easy read and the technique is useful in a lot of other
areas besides.

Something else interesting is a recent Yale/George Mason report on
American attitudes towards climate change. It seems that the deniers
fall into a fairly well defined demographic:
Well paid
Home owners
Older
Well educated
White
Men

research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/CCAmericanMind.pdf

You might ask yourself if your opinion is because of your reasoned
and enlightened thoughts - or because of the group you belong to.

As to my personal opinion - Playing the global warming game is
dangerous and should not be done lightly. If, in fact, GW is a hoax
and there is nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up
or environment and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the
cost of a recession.

The worst that may happen by "cleaning up the environment" is much
worse than that, and is in fact almost entirely unaddressed by anyone.
How much less CO2 production will it take to change anything? No one
knows. Will it results in massive unemployment and economic hardship,
a radical change in lifestyle and great decrease in quality of life?
No one knows. But, the radical greens don't care, right? Their agenda
is something akin to setting technology back a hundred years or so,
with no consideration for how much suffering it would cause anyone,
right? I mean, you're all sympathetic to that idea, right?

So don't pretend that the worst case scenario is just a little cleanup
and increased gas mileage of cars.

Stephen

No Stephen, you missed the point entirely. The worst that can happen is
run away warming that makes Earth largely uninhabitable. Is that
likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. Your choice, their future.

I was talking about your statement:

If, in fact, GW is a hoax
and there is nothing to do then the worst we could do is to clean up
or environment and improve our gas mileage. That may come at the
cost of a recession.

It is raging pretense to say that decreasing CO2 emissions enough to
make a difference is only going to result in a cleaner environment,
better gas mileage cars and a little recession. Read my statement above
for why.

Stephen