"Oliver Keating" <[Only registered users see links. ].ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5O1Ed.1510$[Only registered users see links. ].net...
But it is. Academics extend across the world, just as reality invades the
But since our Sun is variable, and has been for all of recorded history,
what is one to do? Discussions are already in the works to move the orbit
of Earth out past Mars. What more would you have done?
Serious in what sense? Everyone with a bill-of-fare to sell is pushing
their favorite solution. What immediate action would you suggest? Tell
Brazil (as an example) to quit burning forests, or to quit breeding so the
burning is no longer necessary? Tell the USA to quit burning fossil fuels,
or let the rest of the world feed them out of the kindness of their hearts?
NOT just in line with CO2. Also in line with the intensity of the Sun.
Likely not even 50:50. Given that atmospheric moisture is a much better
greenhouse gas, possibly not even 25:75.
Less than half true.
Helluva sentence. What does it mean? Flooding of low lying areas... been
done before (many times) will be done again. Sell off your insurance
company stock, and don't live hear a river (or even an old river bed).
The Dutch wall in their cities. This could be done as well, if you move
the Hudson. Smaller things have been done to supply NYC with water.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 06:33:07 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
<[Only registered users see links. ].ac.uk> wrote:
Please note correlation is not cause and effect
Show no scientific cause and effect.
Capitalism takes care of that,of course -- supply and demand.
Your PC components, cell phone, DVD, digital camera, furniture,
clothes etc., all use oil . What is the oil substitute and for
the power required for the manufacture, transport, powering,
diposal etc. and for the exploding number of people living in
cozy homes or air conditioned buildings who rely on them? And
those in China, and the Indo-Asian continent waiting in line for
all that? Have you breathed in the brown crud being emitted by
them? I have to, every day.
Any global warming over the next century/s, whether it is
totally due to another natural cycle or in part a consequence of
humanity, will be coped with over that time. The real problem
is the raw enviromental destruction by humans, e.g.,
deforestation, water table depletion, overfishing, food animal
waste, garbage, etc., all caused by a catastrophic overpopulation
of declining IQ consumers. That makes any GW inconsequential.
These critical enviromental gravities are not being railed
against since they are all found in the 3rd world which the
corrupt and inept UN is thereby disinterested in. Funds for
"research" with computer model meta analysis in air conditioned
laboratories and conferences in squanky hotels and convention
centers are only found in the OECD but they ain't the problem.
The dirty hard to deal with low tech social problems in the 3rd
world are avoided by the pansy media and GW fanatics unless AIDS
related No money for the UN to skim too you see.
Americans (I'm one) have their bad and good points just like any
other people in the world, but the USA has been singulalry in
the forefront of enviromental concerns. Much of the rest of the
world has just awoken and thus does the commitee finger pointing
to deflect attention, and for the money and opportunity to trade
Recent CO2 emissions per inhabitant statistics:
USA = 19.8 tons
France = 6.3 tons
Switzerland = 6.1 tons
Sweden = 5.4 tons
Canada 16.7 tons
Australia 19 tons
Canada and Australia -- never mentioned in USA denigrations where
it is always sneeringly compared to much smaller OECD countries
that usually have a high percentage of nuclear or hydroelectric
power and no private or public space to speak of.
Any comments about the superior (over nearly all of OECD )
standard of living in those vast generally pristine natural
wonders? Who kept them so? The UN? Who provides most of the
satellite, atmospheric, ocean, glacial data and real research into
alternative energy? IPCC?
The USA alone has a roughly directly measurable equal share of he
world's GDP and the seemingly core enviromental concern global
CO2 emissions of about 25%. But its residents have a much
greater purchasing power than that 25% GDP pie implies. Add its
essential linch pin like driving force in the balance global GDP
due to trade, defense etc.(one fourth to one third) and that 25%
CO2 becomes small indeed..
To bring in some physics, perhaps you can direct me to empirical
data giving atmospheric temperature as a function of CO2 ppm?
I.e., controlled gas, water vapor mix, absorbers and radiation.
The good folks at sci.enviroment have the formidable
mathematical and physical theoretical references, and a plethora
of computers models, correlation, history and IPCC projections,
but strangely, no actual measured data seems to be found to back
up theory. Note again that correlation is not the quest,--
there is plenty of that as you cited above.
Amusingly, twenty odd years ago we were warned of a rapidly
approaching ice age.. And the Earth has lost 25% of its
magnetic field the past century. If it all disappears we may
well go the way of Mars which even with its rarified atmosphere
has ten times the concentration and total amount of CO2. What is
the UN doing about that?
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:28:50 -0500, "tadchem"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
Exactly! But they are 12,000 years too late to nip the current
warming trend in the bud. The real question is, do we really want
to stall or reverse it? Do we really want the Great Lakes
returned to ice berg trenches, etc.?