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.

Gordon wrote:
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.


Gordon,

It isn't just the absolute temperature, it is also the RATE OF CHANGE.
Clearly Earth is under stress due to our population level. The
population has got to where it is only because of the Green Revolution,
which is allowed by cheap energy. The old example is bacteria in a
petri dish.

So anyway, Earth is under stress. Humans are under increasing stress.
The cheap energy is going away. Now we have to adjust to a warmer
climate in a very short time. So it is the cumulative effects.

Then, when we look back we say "Well this or that animal survived this
or that temperature/climate." However we do NOT note that not ALL
species survived. Witness the dinos.

And others argue "Humanity will survive." Quite possibly true. Maye
2-billion, maybe 1-billion, maybe 100 million. No one knows. The
transition sounds kinda bleak.

As they say in financial fields, past gains are no guarantee of future
returns.

Or, its not the fall, its the sudden stop!

hpeer wrote:
Gordon wrote:
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.


Gordon,

It isn't just the absolute temperature, it is also the RATE OF CHANGE.
Clearly Earth is under stress due to our population level. The
population has got to where it is only because of the Green Revolution,
which is allowed by cheap energy. The old example is bacteria in a
petri dish.

So anyway, Earth is under stress. Humans are under increasing stress.
The cheap energy is going away. Now we have to adjust to a warmer
climate in a very short time. So it is the cumulative effects.

Then, when we look back we say "Well this or that animal survived this
or that temperature/climate." However we do NOT note that not ALL
species survived. Witness the dinos.

And others argue "Humanity will survive." Quite possibly true. Maye
2-billion, maybe 1-billion, maybe 100 million. No one knows. The
transition sounds kinda bleak.

As they say in financial fields, past gains are no guarantee of future
returns.

Or, its not the fall, its the sudden stop!

Hpeer,
Recent reports show the earth has been cooling for the last several
years. (Must be true, I read it on the internet!)
The birthrate in the US (by US citizens)is not high enough to sustain
itself.
The US is expected to foot the bill for the problems caused by the
rest of the world?
Sorry, but as a senior citizen on a fixed retirement with my duly
elected representatives trying to takeaway my medicare which I pay for
monthly, I have no wish to solve the rest of the worlds problems by
donating (cap and trade taxes on energy) what little I take in.
Gordon

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