Text 6094, 120 rader
Skriven 2007-09-16 16:39:12 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
   Kommentar till text 6031 av Daniel Prather (344.fidonews)
Ärende: Global Warming
======================
15 Sep 07 00:55, Daniel Prather wrote to Roy Witt:

 DP>   Re: Global Warming
 DP>   By: Roy Witt to Daniel Prather on Fri Sep 14 2007 03:47 pm

 >> Now why would you want to shoot them? Natural selection is allowing
 >> the bears the freedom to choose which way they'll go, ice or land.

 DP> Because if (and I will use *if* here) we are the cause of global
 DP> warming, which leads to melting ice caps,

Which is not a fact, just an unproven theory.

 DP>  and that's considered natural selection, so is shooting them all in
 DP> the head.

Have it your way. Personally, I'd let them be and see what course they
take, sitting on a chunk of ice and wondering how far it is to shore, or
taking a hike and actually heading for shore before they're caught on the
ocean without a paddle. (of course, they may be following the penguins and
seals.

 >> BS, I'll bet that they're quite capable of living on land. I saw a
 >> documentery the other day that showed the mother in her den with two
 >> cubs. When it was time to breakout into the melting snow and ice
 >> (springtime), they had to 'walk' to the nearest ice field. Over hill,
 >> over dale, the mother bear led her two cubs everywhere until she
 >> reached the ice.

 DP> Nobody ever said they couldn't live on land for short periods of
 DP> time.  But polar bears are not adapted to living off the ice for long
 DP> periods of time. That's why they're polar bears and not black or
 DP> grizzly bears.

LOL! They're bears which have adapted to forraging for food on the ice
because their prey is also on the ice or in the icy water. If the ice
melts, the prey will undoubtably head inland where the bear will follow.

 >> And I said that contrary to what y'all tree huggers are saying about
 >> man being the perpetrator of global warming is, if 'man' is the cause
 >> of the earth's temps rising. When did man arrive on Mercury and Venus?
 >> I find it odd that y'all won't look at the evidence and conclude that
 >> there must be something to it, if man isn't there to be the cause.
 >> Actually, it is a substantiated reality.
 >> No, neither would increase the temps unless they were bigger than what
 >> we've seen so far.

 DP> I didn't say that temperatures on other bodies in our solar system
 DP> haven't increased since we've been measuring them.  I said there's
 DP> not enough evidence available to link an increase in temperature on
 DP> another planet/planetoid/etc with an increase in temperature on
 DP> Earth.


 Sun - Mercury - Venus - Earth -> Mars - etc..

Sun warms up, Mercury and Venus experience global warming, earth follows
suit. I'd say y'all had a case if the sun and both of the inner planets
weren't heating up as well.

 DP> First, if the effect is caused by the sun, then it should be
 DP> observable on *all* bodies in the solar system that receive sunlight.

Not as readily as the three planets that are heating up. Pluto receives
sunlight, but it isn't in the inner circle of planets that are
experiencing warming climates.

 DP> Has every planet, asteroid, etc., in the solar system increased in
 DP> temperature?  Does the increase in temperature correlate directly
 DP> with measured increases in solar activity?  Is that temperature
 DP> increase on Earth proportional to the increases on the other planets,
 DP> so that we can rule out human activity as a factor in global warming?

 DP> There's nothing to say that increased solar activity has not caused
 DP> an increase in temperature on Earth.  But, we know that carbon
 DP> dioxide, methane, and a number of other gasses exacerbate the
 DP> greenhouse effect.  We also know that their levels are very, very
 DP> high when compared to levels from only a few hundred years ago
 DP> (before the Industrial Revolution).  It's pretty much guaranteed than
 DP> man's activity has at least some effect on the Earth's climate. The
 DP> penalty for non-action is severe, whereas the penalty for action
 DP> is... nothing.

 >> If it's like the rest of the BS presented by Global Warming Beleivers
 >> to bolster the global warming problem is created by man, I won't
 >> bother.

 DP> I knew you didn't read it.  It doesn't say at all that global warming
 DP> is definitely caused by man.  It goes through each claim and explains
 DP> why those claims are not substantial enough (even with available
 DP> evidence) to draw the conclusion that Earth's warming is being caused
 DP> by the Sun and only by the Sun. By the way, people who see global
 DP> warming as a problem don't necessarily "believe" in it.  We've seen
 DP> the evidence that demonstrates that it's most likely caused by human
 DP> activity.  The evidence to the contrary is shakey at best, and
 DP> completely non-existent at worst.

 >> So is claiming that man is the sole cause of it.

 DP> Nobody is claiming that man is the sole cause of all climate change.
 DP> But man has a lot of influence on this planet, and we do a lot of
 DP> things (especially when you multiply them by 6 billion people) that
 DP> can have a dramatic effect. Please show me where decreased pollution,
 DP> increased health, energy independence, and all the other side-effects
 DP> of greater efficiency and reduced emissions are detrimental to
 DP> society.

 DP> -- Daniel

 DP> --- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD
 DP>  * Origin: :: The Realm of Dreams :: bbs.mysticone.com (1:112/10)

                R\%/itt


"Beware the lollipop of mediocrity! Lick it once and you'll suck
forever..."

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)