wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


Just as much evidence that man's hand is causing the global warming as there
is that we are causing the magnetic field decrease. Very little. Krakatoa
in Indonesia almost killed the prairie settlers of the time. Caused a 3
year dip in temps where they had snow in July in the midwest and the crops
failed. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming. The Kyoto Agreement was done by 99% non-hard science
people. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from
rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!!

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

New proof that man has caused global warming
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington





The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by
human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in
the world's oceans.



The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over,
at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it
right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great
to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett's team examined more than seven million
observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the
world's oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted
by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in
solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as
alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the
data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.


Then read this:

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made
greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The
researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they
describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean
temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within
the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural
phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to
the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said:
"We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a
global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about
it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world
has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are
the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over
the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary
system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly
into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the
oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a
fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer
simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the
climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects
could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely
nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under
President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have
signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers
have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties
and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear
from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made
greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the
oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to
re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage
to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met
Office's Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from
around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity,
and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to
predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed
warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of
similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a
politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations
start to question whether we can believe in these models', that
argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have
increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on
depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has
gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over
the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000
years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Those two articles should at least get your brain to work enough to
realize that the hand of man is, indeed bad for the earth. If not, let
me know, there's thousands and thousands of articles to back up the
fact.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi
Desmo model?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the
natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea
temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global
warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are
now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later
the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE
SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi
Desmo model?

Kevin=Chicken little.

He will provide the proof after he finishes drinking his "schnapps whiskey"
LOL

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi
Desmo model?

Hmm, you need to look, I proved my point. Now, why are you trying to
change the subject, Bill? It's your typical m.o. because you are almost
always shown to be wrong, then you change the subject!!!! Do you not
call *7 MILLION OBSERVATIONS* conclusive??? Does that mean that you've
seen over seven million Autolite carbs that have a tag on a bolt?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the
natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable.
Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as
what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea
temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global
warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did
contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are
now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later
the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE
SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a
Guzzi
Desmo model?

Another few holes in kevins 'proof'

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...b62Em4,00.html
By JAMES SCHLESINGER
August 8, 2005
"Almost unnoticed, the theology of global warming has in recent weeks
suffered a number of setbacks. In referring to the theology of global
warming, one is not focusing on evidence of the earth's warming in recent
decades, particularly in the Arctic, but rather on the widespread insistence
that such warming is primarily a consequence of man's activities -- and
that, if only we collectively had the will, we could alter our behavior and
stop the warming of the planet.

It was Michael Crichton who pointed out in his Commonwealth Club lecture
some years ago that environmentalism had become the religion of Western
elites. Indeed it has. Most notably, the burning of fossil fuels (a
concomitant of economic growth and rising living standards) is the secular
counterpart of man's Original Sin. If only we would repent and sin no more,
mankind's actions could end the threat of further global warming. By
implication, the cost, which is never fully examined, is bearable. So far
the evidence is not convincing. It is notable that 13 of the 15 older
members of the European Union have failed to achieve their quotas under the
Kyoto accord -- despite the relatively slow growth of the European
economies.

The drumbeat on global warming was intended to reach a crescendo during
the run-up to the summit at Gleneagles. Prime Minister Blair has been a
leader in the global warming crusade. (Whether his stance reflects simple
conviction or the need to propitiate his party's Left after Iraq is
unknown.) In the event, for believers, Gleneagles turned out to be a major
disappointment.

On the eve of the summit, the Economic Committee of the House of Lords
released a report sharply at variance with the prevailing European
orthodoxy. Some key points were reported in the Guardian, a London newspaper
not hostile to that orthodoxy:

. The science of climate change leaves "considerable uncertainty" about
the future.

. There are concerns about the objectivity of the international panel of
scientists that has led research into climate change.

. The Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions will make little
difference and is likely to fail.

. The U.K.'s energy and climate policy contains "dubious assumptions"
about renewable energy and energy efficiency.


Most notably, the Committee itself concluded that there are concerns about
the objectivity of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
process and about the IPCC's crucial emissions scenario
exercise"..........................



"Much has been made of the assertion, repeated regularly in the media,
that "the science is settled," based upon a supposed "scientific consensus."
Yet, some years ago in the "Oregon Petition" between 17,000 and 18,000
signatories, almost all scientists, made manifest that the science was not
settled, declaring:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate."

Several additional observations are in order. First, the "consensus" is
ostensibly based upon the several Assessment Reports of the IPCC. One must
bear in mind that the summary reports are political documents put together
by government policy makers, who, to put it mildly, treat rather cavalierly
the expressed uncertainties and caveats in the underlying scientific
reports. Moreover, the IPCC was created to support a specific political
goal. It is directed to support the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change. In turn, the Convention calls for an effective international
response to deal with "the common concern of all mankind" -- in short, to
reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Statements by the leaders of the
IPCC have been uninhibitedly political.

Second, science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo,
Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on
speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is
more than computer simulations -- whose conclusions mirror the assumptions
built in the model. Irrespective of the repeated assertions regarding a
"scientific consensus," there is neither a consensus nor is consensus
science."

It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

"thunder" wrote in message
...


It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running.
In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone,
oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent
can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about
why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man
long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was
socrates not highly intelligent?

High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to
say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals
are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and
junkyards.

More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice.

del

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:00:07 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...


It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running.
In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone,
oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent
can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about
why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man
long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was
socrates not highly intelligent?

High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to
say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals
are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and
junkyards.

More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice.

Ellison did a great story about that, but I can't remember the name.

There has been a number of scifi themed stories along these lines in
fact - mining dumps and stuff - quite intriguing.

Personally, I think we need to find new frontiers to send all these
folks who want to impose their own brand of rule on others. Like
maybe Mars for starters. Let them pray to their spirit leader of
choice while they are terraforming the planet.

Hell, let's start Moon colony's - each bubble can be a different
faction and they can either win or die.

Make it tough for 'em. :)

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:00:07 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...


It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running.
In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone,
oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent
can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about why
intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man long
before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was
socrates not highly intelligent?

High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to
say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals
are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and
junkyards.

More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice.

del

One of man's special gifts is the ability to contemplate a future. Ignore
that gift at your will.