On Jun 24, 6:31?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Ah yes - I see.

It's all our fault.

~~ yawn ~~


wrote:
I don't know how much of it, if any, is mankind's fault--- but the
results will definitely be mankind's problem



It may not be all our fault. May not any of it be our fault. My point
all along is that this is a scientific issue that is still open to
debate. That debate should be scientific, not political.

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem. That was the basis of my "dueling websites"
comment. Everbody could link to hundreds of sites on both sides of th
issues, some of them prepared by people with exceptional scientific
credentials that exceed even those of Sean Hannity, Al Gore, or Rush
Limbaugh. :-)

Way back in the days of yore....there was one lonely voice crying out
that the earth revolved around the sun. All the evidence available at
that time and popularly accepted by the established religious and
political powers seemed to indicate that the earth was the
geographical "center" of the universe. That one lonely voice was
right...

One side or the other in the global warming debate is right. I don't
know which it is, and you don't either. The three main questions a

1. Is the climate changing? Almost any reasonable person would have to
answer yes because the climate has always been in a state of change
for as far back as we can detect.

2. If the climate is changing, is it changing differently or more
rapidly than it has in the past?

3. If the climate is changing differently or more rapidly than in the
past, is there something man should do or should stop doing as a
result?

The tough aspect is that it's going to take 100 years to know who's
right about climate change.....and in the meantime it's silly (IMO) to
get all worked up on a personal basis or start characterizing people
who disagree with your personal guess on the issue as a bunch of bad
guys.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.


In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:08:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.

In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.

Not at all. The "Deniers" are Galileo railing against the Church of
Global Warming, Pope Al Gore presiding. :)

Answer me this Harry. How many times in Earth's history, based on
archeological, paleontological and anthropological evidence, has the
Earth warmed or cooled?

Now take those same disciplines and apply them to the time that
Homosapiens has been walking the planet - how many times?

Take your time - I'll be back this evening. :)

On Jun 25, 6:36 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:08:15 -0400, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem

That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.

The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.

However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.

I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.

Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.

In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.

Not at all. The "Deniers" are Galileo railing against the Church of
Global Warming, Pope Al Gore presiding. :)

Answer me this Harry. How many times in Earth's history, based on
archeological, paleontological and anthropological evidence, has the
Earth warmed or cooled?

Now take those same disciplines and apply them to the time that
Homosapiens has been walking the planet - how many times?

Take your time - I'll be back this evening. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom, you mean the sky ain't a-falling???

Tim wrote:
On Jun 25, 6:36 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:08:15 -0400, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:36:27 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
Pointing out the 10-15% of scientists who disagree with the herd and
pointing out instances when some scientist or another was wrong about
previous climate predictions won't erase the very real possibility
that there's a problem
That's the point Chuck. While you may think it's 10-15% of
scientists, and it's certainly presented that way, it's more like
50/60% of scientists disagree. There isn't any consensus even amoung
those who even think that somehow greenhouse gases are causing global
warming.
The simple truth is this - you can either believe in Global Warming or
not believe in Global Warming. You obviously believe in it despite
evidence to the contrary. So does Gene. And I have no problem with
that.
However, every time I, or others, bring up evidence to the contrary,
it's dismissed - politely and reasonably to be sure, but it's still
dismissed under the quise that the evidence isn't in, but....
Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.
I would also point out that in the history of science, the "deniers"
of established wisdom are usually the ones that are eventually proven
right.
Think Galileo Galilei and go from there.
In this case, you and the rest of the "deniers" are on the side opposite
of Galileo.
Not at all. The "Deniers" are Galileo railing against the Church of
Global Warming, Pope Al Gore presiding. :)

Answer me this Harry. How many times in Earth's history, based on
archeological, paleontological and anthropological evidence, has the
Earth warmed or cooled?

Now take those same disciplines and apply them to the time that
Homosapiens has been walking the planet - how many times?

Take your time - I'll be back this evening. :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom, you mean the sky ain't a-falling???


The sky is falling but, it will rise again just like it has for hundreds
of thousands of years. The cycle is about 150,000 years with a the
global temperature rising to a point that is about 6*F higher than now
and then it makes a share drop of about 12*F. And the whole process
starts again.

Since we, human type peoples, were not burning coal or oil nor using
aerosol sprays 150, 300 and 450 thousand years ago we can come to the
conclusion that us human type peoples are not the cause of this cycle.

It's high humidity today. jsut walked in from outdoors, and it reminds
me of the philipines. .

looks like its going to be hot and really muggy today, unless we have
a nother little storm pop though.


gag!

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:54:11 -0000, Tim wrote:

It's high humidity today. jsut walked in from outdoors, and it reminds
me of the philipines. .

looks like its going to be hot and really muggy today, unless we have
a nother little storm pop though.


gag!


No, not gag. I'm hoping we get the 'chancy' thunderstorm this afternoon!

John H. wrote:
No, not gag. I'm hoping we get the 'chancy' thunderstorm this afternoon!

John, you could probably use it.

But around here, things are getting danky and moldy. We aren't
flooded by any means, but it would be nice for the humidity to back
down a few points.

On Jun 25, 3:29?am, Short Wave Sportfishing

Just be honest - you believe in it, you think it's humanity's fault
and go from there.


Thanks for telling me what my opinion should be in order to be
"honest". :-) But, honestly, I don't fit your stereotype as neatly as
you might hope.

The three big questions, again, are.

1. Is the climate changing? (I believe the climate is changing. I
also believe that the climate has never been constant and is always in
a state of warming or cooling)

2. If the climate is changing, is it changing more rapidly or to a
greater degree than it has in the past? (I don't know about this. I
suspect it may be- although certain climate changes have been so
catastrophic in the past that they may be the underlying events behind
world wide stories of global deluge (ie Noah and/or Gilgamesh) or even
the planetary imbalance that could have led to the sudden shifting of
magnetic poles several times in the history of our planet. Is the
current change as rapid or severe as changes that may have contributed
to deluge mythology or pole relocation? We darn well better hope
not....)

3. If the climate is changing more rapidly or to a greater degree than
it has in the past, is there something mankind should do or should not
do as a result? (As a conservationist, I recommend that everybody
examine their lifestyle for any ridiculously destructive or unduly
wasteful practices and consider modifying their behaviors when
necessary to put less stress on resources and the environment. But I'm
not an extremist. Some of the measures recommended by global warming
factions make sense from other considerations, like pollution
ccontrol, as well.)

My specific concern is the rapid disappearance of the polar ice caps.
Most of our weather, winds, and currents are generated by thermal
gradients between the poles and the tropics. If wind and currents get
screwed up weather will follow and life as we know it will change- a
lot.

One major risk is that organisms, including man, may not be able to
adapt rapidly enough to a new weather and climate dynamic to survive-
so it would be in our best interest not to accelerate the rate of
climate change if we can avoid doing so.

Is it man's fault? All of it? Any of it? Can't personally say for
sure. Nor can you say, for sure, that it isn't.

Global warming at the kitchen table?:

Last night one of my wife's girlfriends dropped by to see our photos
from Alaska. She was last in Alaska in 1980, and she brought over her
photos to show us.

We started with ours, and when we showed her the picture of the
Mendenhall glacier she almost went into shock. "That can't be!" She
said. "I've got a photo of the Mendenhall glacier, and there's no
great big huge lake like that in front of it....in fact there's this
insignificant little pond and nothing more!" She got out her photo,
that according to the profiles of hills and landscapes in the area
appeared to be taken from a location not too far from where we took
ours. The difference was dramatic. If her photo was indeed of the same
glacier, (as it appears to be) it has probably retreated a mile and a
half to two miles in the last 27 years. It is also substantially lower
than in her photo. That's hardly scientific evidence- we don't know
for sure where her photo was taken or how our photo would look if we
stood on the *exact* same spot where she took hers, but it brings the
possibility home more credibly than photos from any single source on
some website that may have a pro or anti-warming agenda.