"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.


Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:
Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to
me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next
several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the
while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back
the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and
instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on
our consuption of fossil fuel.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...


Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to
me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next
several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the
while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back
the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and
instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on
our consuption of fossil fuel.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise.

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...


Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to
me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next
several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the
while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back
the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and
instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on
our consuption of fossil fuel.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise.

Cool. Now all we have to do is work on Darfur. g



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com...



On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.

Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.


respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.

On Mar 27, 2:45 pm, "Two meter troll" wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:



"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.

Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.

so in addendome here are a few searches; i figure if its gonna stay
factual i will provide the whole data set and not single out any
spacific sites. enjoy.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...lobal+CO2+emis...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...l+ocean+temper...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...oric+global+wa...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch...

I love research

Two meter troll wrote:

respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.



No problem! There is data going back millions of years. That data
indicates that we are in a typical global warming cycle that is not much
different than the last seven cycles. In fact, its not as rapid as
three of the cycles.

In relation to the CO2 levels in the ice cores, there is a measurement
problem. The CO2 levels taken from the cores are raw levels and do not
allow for any outgasing of CO2 for the thousands of years the ice
existed. Outgasing will reduce the amounts in the ice and will
partially mask the actual amount of atmospheric CO2 at the time of the
ice was formed. (If you leave an open can of sparkling water, the CO2
will eventually escape leaving a can of flat water.)

So if we can't prove that CO2 levels are at a historic high now (which
they aren't anyway) and the temperature rise in consistent with previous
trends, where does that leave global warming?

Global warming is big business. Its not about developing alternative
energy sources. People are making a lot of money doing research and
others are being publicly funded to develop countermeasures to "stop
global warming". So the battle cry is to shout down anyone who
threatens that money source. if that money were spent on developing
alternative energy sources to coal/oil/natgas, we'd all be a lot better off.


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.


Anyone my age or older certainly can remember the scare of 40 years ago
or so when it was predicted that all the CO2 man was putting into the
atmosphere would thrust the earth into an ice age by 2010. Maybe the
electron spin on carbon atoms reversed itself. Bad electrons!!

Cessna 310 wrote:


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.

This one?

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...arguments.html

Stephen

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.

This one?

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...arguments.html


Stephen

Can't find the actual video, but I think the link you provided is related.

Cessna 310 wrote in
:

Can't find the actual video, but I think the link you provided is
related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Larry
--