Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?

Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

It's only by applying research science, observational science and
differing opinions converging on a consensus that will begin to
uncover if it is or if it ain't.

My comment was not focused on your debating style, but the "Global
Warming Debate" among the vast majority of people. To me finding
alternative energy solutions and improving the efficiency of the fossil
fuel we use has benefits to all of us, EVEN if the global warming issue
is moot. I really think some people, especially some in rec.boats only
like to debate or discuss Global Warming so they can scream "See all you
do damn Reps. do is goosestep to your party line". My guess is they
would be depressed if we solved the Global Warming problem, because it
would be one less insult they could deliver. That being said, I
personally agree with most scientists who say an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere is having an effect on our climate. This by no means says
that man is the only or even the major reason for the increase in global
temperature, but we do need to do everything possible to leave a smaller
footprint on the world's ecosystem.