Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

Lloyd wrote:

:
:Clue #5: Why experiment with our only planet? Sure, other places may
:become warm enough to grow crops, but what if the soil isn't fertile?
:What if warming changes rainfall patterns so those places become too
:wet, or too dry?
:
:Again, why experiment with our only planet?
:

Isn't this exactly what YOU want to do?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:47:53 -0700, Einar wrote:

So if we are very lucky there will be no serious disturbance in
Asiatic rice farming. But, if there is the fallout would be the
greatest hunger the world has ever seen.
Einar

Thanks for the appraisal of the situation, expert. :-)

Do you mean the swamps (rice paddies) might actually dry up
if it gets 2 degrees warmer? That might be good news, then they
could plant potatoes and get 5 times the weight in nutritious starch.

PS: Learn to clip.

Who is the newbie crossposting to so many groups?

Einar wrote:

:
wrote:
: In sci.physics Lloyd wrote:
:
: Again, why experiment with our only planet?
:
:
: What experiment?
:
:
:We are experimenting with climate change.
:

And what makes the 'experiment' that you favor 'better'?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:10:30 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Lloyd wrote:
:Clue #5: Why experiment with our only planet? Sure, other places may
:become warm enough to grow crops, but what if the soil isn't fertile?
:What if warming changes rainfall patterns so those places become too
:wet, or too dry?
:
:Again, why experiment with our only planet?

Isn't this exactly what YOU want to do?

Did you know it was 92 here today, and it may be in the 90s
for 10 days?

Could it just be August, with a Bermuda high in place? :-)

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly
: :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion,
: :even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production
: :could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two
: :countries, and the world wouldn´t be able to rescue them preciselly
: :due to the size of theyr respective populations.
: :
:
: Then you'd think these two countries would be all in favour of
: radically restricting their own output of CO2. They're not. Why do
: you think that is?
:
: :
: :If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries
: :have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over
: :large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as
: :nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried?
: :
:
: The rest of the planet could vanish into a new stone age tomorrow and
: in a just a few years India and China would have things right back
: where they are now. Then what?
:
:
:It´s not an unknown phenomena throughout history that leaders of
:countries behave stupidly.
:

So why do you think we should exterminate ourselves in their
interests?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

How would that happen? "So why do you think we should exterminate
ourselves in their interests?"

Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
wrote:
: In sci.physics Lloyd wrote:
:
: Again, why experiment with our only planet?
:
:
: What experiment?
:
:
:We are experimenting with climate change.
:

And what makes the 'experiment' that you favor 'better'?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

You mean the experiment wether we can modify our behavior. That would
be an useful learning experience for humanity, as learned flexibility
of that nature could prove darn useful sometime.

Einar

Whata Fool wrote:

:On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:10:30 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:wrote:
:
:Lloyd wrote:
::Clue #5: Why experiment with our only planet? Sure, other places may
::become warm enough to grow crops, but what if the soil isn't fertile?
::What if warming changes rainfall patterns so those places become too
::wet, or too dry?
::
::Again, why experiment with our only planet?
:
:Isn't this exactly what YOU want to do?
:
:
: Did you know it was 92 here today, and it may be in the 90s
:for 10 days?
:

Here, too. The unseasonably cool weather has been quite nice.


--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly
: : :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion,
: : :even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production
: : :could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two
: : :countries, and the world wouldn´t be able to rescue them preciselly
: : :due to the size of theyr respective populations.
: : :
: :
: : Then you'd think these two countries would be all in favour of
: : radically restricting their own output of CO2. They're not. Why do
: : you think that is?
: :
: : :
: : :If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries
: : :have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over
: : :large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as
: : :nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried?
: : :
: :
: : The rest of the planet could vanish into a new stone age tomorrow and
: : in a just a few years India and China would have things right back
: : where they are now. Then what?
: :
: :
: :It´s not an unknown phenomena throughout history that leaders of
: :countries behave stupidly.
: :
:
: So why do you think we should exterminate ourselves in their
: interests?
:
:
:How would that happen? "So why do you think we should exterminate
urselves in their interests?"
:

We reduce our CO2 footprint to try to 'fix' things while China and
India increase theirs.

Repeat until frozen.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: wrote:
: : In sci.physics Lloyd wrote:
: :
: : Again, why experiment with our only planet?
: :
: :
: : What experiment?
: :
: :
: :We are experimenting with climate change.
: :
:
: And what makes the 'experiment' that you favor 'better'?
:
:
:You mean the experiment wether we can modify our behavior. That would
:be an useful learning experience for humanity, as learned flexibility
f that nature could prove darn useful sometime.
:

No, I mean the experiment whereby you attempt to modify climate by
screwing with the CO2 budget. The same 'experiment' being complained
about.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Jul 31, 10:35 pm, "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
"Lloyd" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jul 30, 11:35 pm, "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
"Joe Strout" wrote in message

...

In article . com,
Einar wrote:

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

That's a fair summary. A warming climate is going to change weather
patterns, causing droughts and desertification in previously fertile
areas, and increased rainfall (leading to soil erosion and flooding in
places) elsewhere. And, of course increased sea levels, putting most
countries' most valuable real estate underwater. All fine and dandy
from a 1000-km, 1000-year view, but quite a bit of a bummer if you
happen to be living someplace where you've become accustomed to growing
food, or having topsoil, or not having your house underwater.

And oh yes, it also can result in some substantial local climate
changes
-- illogical as it seems to simple-minded deniers, a global warming of
climate may well plunge turn most of western Europe's local climate
into
something more like Siberia, as the currents which currently cause its
temperate climate shut down.

Of course, I live on the front range of the Rocky Mountains; there
won't
be much flooding here (the ice caps melt every summer anyway), and it's
already quite dry. Things could get a bit worse for me, but not a LOT
worse. It's the people on the coasts that I really feel for.
Unfortunately, more than half of all people in the U.S. live on or near
the coast, and the situation is probably similar for other countries
with significant coastline. Sure, they can all relocate inland, giving
up New York, San Diego, LA, Boston, Washington DC, etc. etc., but you
may see that this is a rather expensive and messy proposition, and best
avoided if possible.

I suspect that many of the deniers are simply hoping that it won't
happen until after they're dead -- screwing our children and
grandchildren for perceived short-term gains. But that's not a
philosophy I would subscribe to, even if I didn't hope to be here for a
long time myself.

Fortunately, the tide has shifted, and the deniers are now a pathetic
minority with no power. Even the Denier-in-Chief has publicly admitted
reality, and started making the right sort of noises about it, albeit
without much enthusiasm. The next President will no doubt do more.
It's probably not too late, at least not to avoid the worst of it.

But we do need some new carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources, and
we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be
quite
promising.

I do not deny that the climate is warming, our instruments seem to
indicate
that it is (have we accounted for all of the sources of error?), but the
idea that the warming is man-made, and that it will increase without
bound
to cataclysmic proportions is untestable speculation.

False. We know the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels, and analysis
has ruled out other possible causes.

True. There, I said it. That makes it so. Ruled out how? By testing what?
Computer models don't suffice - they amount to testing your own hypothesis
with your own hypothetical model.


We know if by looking at the isotope ratios of the added carbon. No
computer models needed for this. Geez, man, do a bit of reading!

Do you think you can confidently predict that warming *is* man-made, and
*will* increase without bound to cataclysmic proportions? How did your
preferred scientists test their hypothesis?


That the warming is man-made is NOT a prediction, any more than
"carbon has 6 protons" is a prediction. It is a fact, based on data
and science.

There are plenty of
stronger hypotheses out there - involving natural phenomena (e.g., the
Sun)
that historically track the data better than AGW and hopelessly
inadequate
computer models.

Do you think science hasn't looked into these? Geez, man, do some
reading!

There is an increasing number of scientists who are speaking up about this,
but it isn't the bandwagon to be on if you want research grants these days.
I just don't believe everything I read.


No, you believe what denialists have to say. You ignore the
scientific journals, the National Academy of Sciences, the AGU, the
AAAS, the Royal Society.

That makes you a fool.

What I can predict is the misery, disease and pestilence that will occur
if
governments worldwide increase their control over societies, forcing them
to
fall into line with dreamed-up regulations, economies be damned. That is
historical, reproducible and testable, and I think that has a much higher
likelihood to be a global disaster than any climate change.

Yeah, you and Rush. Geez, talk it to a damn talk conference; you are
scientifically illiterate.

Well if Rush agrees with me, that's great! But no, I have studied basic
economics, that's all.

Does that make you an expert on brain surgery too? You seem to think
it makes you one on science.

Sadly, economics isn't taught in school anymore.

Another example of you not knowing what you're talking about.

And
rejecting popular junk science doesn't make me illiterate.

No, you ARE scientifically illiterate. That only demonstrates it.