Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

In article ,
wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:54=A0pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:06:51 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Man-made CO2 "significantly" affects global warning? You also don't
know how to use the language =A0precisely. What the hell does
"significantly" mean to you in this context?

In this case, it means that probably most, and almost certainly more
than half, of the global warming observed in the last 100 years has been
caused, directly or indirectly, by humans. Mostly from the release of
CO2 used for generating energy. That viewpoint is consistent with the
majority of well supported climate theories, and with the opinion of the
majority of climate scientists. While you're free to disagree with it,
you are not free to disregard it or treat it as bad science unless you
don't care to be taken seriously at all.

Do water vapor and cloud cover have perhaps an even more "significant"
effect?

These elements are both significant in determining climate. They are
important in the current context because both are also influenced by
human activities.

Do we know definitively that such things as sun cycles have no
"significant" effect on global warming ( which, btw, has occurred
numerous times in the recorded historical past long before the the
20th century ).

We have strong evidence that sun cycles are important factors in long
term climate change on the Earth. Changes in the Sun are not widely
considered to be significant factors in climate change in the last
century or two.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

"Probably", "almost certainly", etc--are you trying to describe an
unproven theory or, even worse, a computer model with many
questionable assumptions?

That language merely reflects the fact that there are always uncertainties
in virtually everything. Scientists readily admits this, while media
people refuses to admit it, and afterwards when it turned out they were
wrong, they prefer to "forget" what they once said.

You talk of "common sense". The panic types say we had record melting
of almost the entire northern ice cap this year. So, the world's
oceans should have risen a good bit of the 70 feet predicted by Al
Gore right?

Wrong! Don't be so ignorant.... ocean ice melting won't raise the
sea level at all - because that ice already is in the water. Therefore
the ice cap around the North Pole melting won't raise the ocean. What
will raise the sea level is when glaciers on land melts. The biggest
glacier on land is of course the ices of Antarctica. The second biggest
is Greenland, although that one is much smaller than the one in Antarctica.

In fact, the ocean water level rise was hardly measurable--what
happened? Did the Southern ice cap grow by a similar or larger amount
possibly?

If a "scientific theory" can't be empirically tested or it can't make
measurable predictions, it is sort of worthless, isn't it?

If this was just a "scientific theory" it would be easy, although
somewhat time consuming, to test empirically: just continue as before,
and see and measure what happens!

However, this is more than just a test of a scientific theory. It is
also a likely catastrophy. Which means the price to test this
scientific theory is too high. Or would you be willing to probably have
your home flooded, just to test this theory? If not, why do you demand
millions and millions of others living in many coastal cities around the
world to take that risk?


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/