"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.

Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of
the enviros, called "The Population Bomb", was quite a best seller in the
60's. Most of us were going to be dead by now. You remember, food
riots and starvation not obesity was to be the crisis. Here are a couple
of quotes I got off Amazon....

1. on Page 39: "... in the average temperature of the Earth could be
very serious. With a few degrees of cooling , a new ice age might be upon
us, with rapid and drastic effects on the agricultural productivity of
the temperate regions. With a few ..." 2. on Page 60: "... effect was
obviously beyond the worst DOD projections-too much crap injected into
the stratosphere." "I think we've probably started an ice age spiral, but
it won't make much difference to us." ..."

I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk
down memory lane and read it.

del

... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.


Del Cecchi wrote:
Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of
the enviros

Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little
better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument.

In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might be
entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If you
don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to completely
unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility.


I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk
down memory lane and read it.

perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou
population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic,
too?' Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't
have a teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation.

Got kids? Grandkids?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.


Del Cecchi wrote:
Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point
of the enviros

Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little
better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument.

Of course it isn't the same people and the same argument. Then it was
Paul Erlich, mass starvation and an ice age. He sold his books, had his
15 minutes of fame. Now it is rampant obesity and global warming and a
new crop of doomsayers. Why should I think these folks know what they
are talking about any more than Erlich did?

In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might
be entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If
you don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to
completely unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility.

I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a
walk down memory lane and read it.

perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou
population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic,
too?' Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't
have a teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation.

Got kids? Grandkids?

Ah, the last refuge of an environmentalist with no facts. It's for the
children and Cheney's Oil Buddies.
I presume this is some sort of reference to proposed drilling in ANWAR.
The harm to my grandchildren from drilling in ANWAR is way down on my
list of things to worry about. Some criminal or terrorist harming them,
or them getting run over by a bus or a car is much higher.

Tell me, if greenhouse gases are really such a threat to the environment,
why are Chinese, Indian, Mexican greenhouse gases not just as much a
problem as American and European greenhouse gases? Were there climate
fluctuations over the last say 1000 years before mankind was adding many
gases to the atmosphere? Why? Why are today's fluctuations man's fault
when the previous ones weren't?

Have you ever done any computer modeling? What is your degree in?

DSK

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.


Del Cecchi wrote:
Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of
the enviros

Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little
better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument.

Of course it isn't the same people and the same argument. Then it was
Paul Erlich, mass starvation and an ice age. He sold his books, had his
15 minutes of fame. Now it is rampant obesity and global warming and a
new crop of doomsayers. Why should I think these folks know what they are
talking about any more than Erlich did?

In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might be
entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If you
don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to completely
unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility.

I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk
down memory lane and read it.

perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou
population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic, too?'
Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't have a
teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation.

Got kids? Grandkids?

Ah, the last refuge of an environmentalist with no facts. It's for the
children and Cheney's Oil Buddies.
I presume this is some sort of reference to proposed drilling in ANWAR.
The harm to my grandchildren from drilling in ANWAR is way down on my list
of things to worry about. Some criminal or terrorist harming them, or
them getting run over by a bus or a car is much higher.

Tell me, if greenhouse gases are really such a threat to the environment,
why are Chinese, Indian, Mexican greenhouse gases not just as much a
problem as American and European greenhouse gases? Were there climate
fluctuations over the last say 1000 years before mankind was adding many
gases to the atmosphere? Why? Why are today's fluctuations man's fault
when the previous ones weren't?

Your last paragraph is key. The Kyoto accords were just a method of letting
rich countries buy pollution credits from poor countries. Nothing more than
a redistribution of wealth.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.

Del Cecchi wrote:
I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.


Especially putting mercury & lead in the drinking water. That's the
really helpful part, ice-age-wise.


thunder wrote:
It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with
any certainty.

What's funny to me is the way the right wing whackos are insisting that
it's perfectly OK to trash what's left of the environment because
'Global Warming Is Junk Science' and declare that nobody knows how the
environment really works, but at the same time insist that *they* know
for sure mankind isn't the cause.

"As we know, there are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know that we don't know."
-Donald Rumsfeld

Maybe Dell, Bill, Scooby, John, Bert, Nobby, and all the other
Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will take this guys word for it?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

"As we know, there are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know that we don't know."
-Donald Rumsfeld

Maybe Dell, Bill, Scooby, John, Bert, Nobby, and all the other Bush/Cheney
Cheerleaders will take this guys word for it?

Anyone with an analytical mind will understand the above quote as they read
it.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need
to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood
with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated"
amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was
just mocking it.

But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in
http://www.realclimate.org

The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds and
the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo Haline
Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break
down.

The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual
scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent.

del

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:41:49 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood
with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was
just mocking it.


First, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that site.


But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in
http://www.realclimate.org

The Gulf Stream is not in any danger? How do you know? Certainly, not
from that site. The final line in that article sums it up, "Thus while
continued monitoring of this key climatic area is clearly warranted, the
imminent chilling of the Europe is a ways off yet."


The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds and
the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo Haline
Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break
down.

Uh, and what causes the wind? Look, I don't know if we are headed for an
Ice Age. I'm not even sure if this period of global warming is natural or
man made, but prudence would dictate treading carefully. I have great
faith in Mother Natures ability to heal herself. Unfortunately, I fear,
as a species we might not like the healing process.

The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual
scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent.

del

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:41:49 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need
to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood
with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated"
amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I
was
just mocking it.


First, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that site.


But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in
http://www.realclimate.org

The Gulf Stream is not in any danger? How do you know? Certainly, not
from that site. The final line in that article sums it up, "Thus
while
continued monitoring of this key climatic area is clearly warranted,
the
imminent chilling of the Europe is a ways off yet."


The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds
and
the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo
Haline
Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break
down.

Uh, and what causes the wind? Look, I don't know if we are headed for
an
Ice Age. I'm not even sure if this period of global warming is natural
or
man made, but prudence would dictate treading carefully. I have great
faith in Mother Natures ability to heal herself. Unfortunately, I
fear,
as a species we might not like the healing process.

The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual
scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent.

del

I think the scientific position is that what is commonly known as the
gulf stream is a shallow current driven by wind. Wind is driven by the
atmospheric circulation, and I haven't heard anyone saying it will quit
blowing or the jet stream is in danger due to global warming.

The current or circulation pattern folks are worried about is THC which
is a convective thing driven by cold salty water sinking in the north.
If too much fresh water comes from the melting ice, then this could
weaken and that would be a problem. That's the global warming
connection.

My point wasn't that there may not be a concern or a problem or however
you want to put it, but that calling the phenomenum in question the "Gulf
Stream" wasn't really correct. They are interconnected but different.
Or so that site led me to believe.