On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:48:29 +0100, Volker Hetzer wrote:

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.

Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear
as a result, the world will go on just fine.
No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you
/not/ to screw up.

They don't know if we are indeed "screwing up".
What is your evidence of that statement? So far I have only heard you
dismissing things as unknown or unknowable. The CO2 output is real. So
is the SO2 output. So is the warming. So is (was?) the effect of FCKW's
on the ozone layer. So is the effect of large scale wood burning in
south east asia.

No one really knows.
Go on then, try to prove an universal negative.

I
do know that science has become the tool of politicians and scientists
will whore themselves out to the highest bidder or to who provides the
largest grants or source of future funding revenue.
So you have never read a scientific report? Too cheap to buy articles
from "science" or "nature"? They're there, you know? And the magazines,
not the authors are selecting the peer reviewers.

Here's a great book to get you going. Much of what that guy wrote is
clearly outdated (i.e. wrong from today's point of view) but precisely
because of that, you can learn a lot of how science collects evidence,
draws conclusion, some correct, some incorrect, some estimated correctly
(as likely or unlikely) some estimated wrongly and generally does its
best to arrive at the concept of "current best knowledge".

Here's the amazon URL: http://tinyurl.com/yhxcfr . Go on, buy it. It's a
great read for the scientifically disappointed. Seriously.

And our "current best knowledge" is that global warming is a reality,
that (obviously, even if it appears to be new to you) shifting climate
patterns will mean a cooling effect in some areas too, that we cause it
and that the cost of dealing with it is higher than the cost of avoiding
it.
This is particularly true for coastal areas, for colder ones and for
drought affected ones. One example: since most cities (Las Vegas
ecxepted) are situated near fresh water sources and climate shift will
affect water distribution you can start imagining the cost.


The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global
freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts.
They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global
warming or global cooling?
Who said "global" freezing?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...l_of_knowledge
.

You sound more and more like a victim of propaganda, or someone trying
to convince himself and others that the whole thing will blow over like
a fashion and they can go on without really bothering. The danger with
people like you is that we can't just sit back and wait till you feel it
on your own and then let you deal with it on your own.


Even a temperature DROP is a result of
global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together
like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes
climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect
climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or
computer, can remotely hope to model or predict.
It will change but a lot of money has been invested into the current
climate (heating installations, insulations, power distribution and
generation capabiltiy, even fuel composition). /Any/ redistribution will
carry enormous costs.

I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either
warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than
what I hear from the global warming alarmists.
Yes. So you agree? Which do you prefer, warming or cooling? Both will be
disastrous.


BTW, hasn't several of
these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should
have burned up all the oil reserves at this point?
Which ones?

Shouldn't the world
be a total hell hole by now?
Go to australia for sunbathing.


Even if the current changes happening now is a result of burning
fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and not the exception.
People die. That does not mean killing is the norm.

We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
volcanic eruptions.
Any evidence for it?

Evidence of what?
Of the statement you made.

See the previous post I made. I already gave you an answer. Just
because you don't like it and snip it out of you reply post doesn't
mean I need to repeat it.
You didn't.
To quote you:
The Earth's axis has a wobble, the sun has solar flares and volcanoes
erupt.
Please provide evidence that those are responsible for the current
climate change.

They all have drastic effects on the global climate.
Irrelevant. Notice the nice emotional but wholly useless word "drastic".
Care to quantify that?
Right now there is no evidence that any current solar or natural earthly
activities have an effect that is comparable to the effect /we/ have.
Face it, our influence on the climate is big enough to keep it in the
comfort zone and what we do steers it out of it.

As for:
It will be 50-100 years, at a minimum, before either of these scenarios
happen.
It will be several decades until a smoker dies of cancer. So what?
Besides, what do you suggest? Wait until it has happened and press the
undo button? Halving the electricity and fuel production, tearing down
most houses and throwing away most cars when finally /you/ have accepted
the truth of it too? Will /you/ pay for all that?

We /need/ the next fifty or hundred years to avoid "these scenarios"
happening. Some countries even face them today. It's great that /you/
can sit back and let them go hang but to deny their existence is - I
don't know how to write it without being seriously impolite. You know
what I mean, so I'll spare myself the effort.

You question whether the global climate is effected by the Earth's axis
wobble, volcano eruptions and solar fluctuation's but believe the
current global warming hype without question?
You cleverly mix up quantitative and qualitative statements in your
posts and that's good rhetorics and in an oral discussion you could
probably win that kind of argument. But here everyone has enough time to
think about what you're saying and therefore it doesn't work.

You must be a politician or are looking for more funding revenue.
One gets a lot more funding for showing that it's okay to burn fossil
fuel. Or smoke cigarettes. What are you?

The problem with all this posturing is that it is ignoring the
paleoclimatological evidnce, which suggests that _something_ is preventing
a period of glaciation. If that "something" is human activity that is
being interpreted as "global warming" and if that activity is suddenly
stopped, the result may be far more unpleasant than you expect.


Volker



--
X:\Newsreaders\sig.txt