Text 979, 81 rader
Skriven 2006-05-30 17:37:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1425.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Wesley Struebing to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <cnkp729vs40tqcsj3a98iq776hhbd2uopb@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <1148826538.223080.66670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
On Tue, 30 May 2006 08:03:37 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
<jt@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
>news:ipmn72lpsihhej25lks0u61mf02umkop6f@4ax.com...
>
<snip>
>>
>> Not quite sure where that came from. Which eminent scientist (or even
>> respect television presenter like Sir David Attenborough) did you
>> think was unsure about climate change?!  The only people who profess
>> to be unsure about this are the oil companies and their political
>> lapdogs. It is fact. We have to deal with it or live with the
>> consequences.
>
>There is no consensus on the CAUSE of global warming, which is the true root 
>issue.  Yes the planet is warming up, and there's a pretty good consensus 
>about that.  But Earth has had a higher global average than it currently has 
>and well before humanity came upon the scene.  We're currently well within 
>natural tolerances.
You are correct in the sense that a "new" ecology will develop to work
within those changed parameters, but it is already proving more than
problematical for life in the sea, such as plankton and especially
coral, which seems to be dying off at an alarming rate.
>
>For global warming to be of concern, the temperature shift has to mostly or 
>comepletly human-made and within humanity's ability to change.  All global 
>warming concern is based on assuming we know the answers on these two 
>points.
Not necessarily.  See my comment above.  Whatever the reason (and the
temps have been going in this cycle since the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution.  What seems to have taken far longer in the
past has taken place in the past 250 years, a split second in
geological time.
>
>Boilerplate global warming assumes that the shift in temperature is entriely 
>human-made and entirely within humanity's control--but only if we hurry!

No, it doesn't, and except for some real fear-mongers, no one is
saying that it is exclusively a man-made warming.  What they are
saying is that human activity is contributing inordinately to the
overall climate change.
>
>I have never heard a global-warming alarmist ever talk about what percentage 
>of the earth's temperature rise could possibly be due to natural causes, 
>leading to the conclusion that the entirety of global warming is being 
>blamed on humanity.  This seem to me to be naive in the extreme.  We live on 
>a world that is constantly in flux.  If humans never appeared, this planet 
>would still see climate change over time due to solar output and the 
>gods-know-what-all.  There is no constant, static baseline background to 
>measure the current warming against.  Nor have we taken detailed temperature 
>readings across the planet for a long enough period of time for large-scale 
>trends to appear, as evidenced by the fact that as little as thirty years 
>ago enviornmental alsrmists were worried about the onset of the next ice 
>age.
>
>Thus I think it can reasonably be said that we don't know what humanity's 
>contribution to global warming is.  Therefore we don't know what degree of 
>threat this warming poses or whether we can do anything about it.

Well, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a
duck, chances are it's a duck...
>

--

Wes Struebing

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
                                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)