in red Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Greetings all Well tonight I was going to try to respond to Philip's four lengthy attacks of the night before last but the five (and a half) posts of last night have convinced me of the pointlessness of that endeavour. Clearly the efforts of four protagonists acting with religious zeal will always bury the voice of one, especially when the four just know they are right despite what the world's concensus of scientific thought says. Your predisposition is showing here! Prove the concensus! But wait, Haven't you addmitted before that concensus isn't proof and that you judge by the evidence????? I suggest you stop using as "proof" that which you have admitted isn't proof. Might is right! Yeah! [Acts 7:57] Because I am not able to respond as I'd like -- you know, clear, calm reasoned debate And how does your above emotional & predjudicial attack on your opponents fall into that self description??-- I'll just try to address a few points. j a "I admit that, at this point in time, I am not expecting to have my view changed" "I don't know. I didn't say I knew. I did say "...when I decide..." " You seem too conflicted to discuss this! But anyway - currrently the sun is hotter, other planets (without peolple) are currently hotter to match the suns increased output, Throughout time the earth has constantly gone through cooling and warming cycles, All the indications of man-made global warming are from computer models and my weatherman can barely predict next weeks weather let alone 25 years from now, The people pushing global warming are alarmists, The people who are pressing the need to curtail human activity to fix this problem are mostly liberal big government types and they always need a crisis. I'm sure others could expand this list greatly. I've listed some of my reasons - Now I repeat - Please list your big reasons for believing. Last first. I've confessed my paltry qualifications. I acknowledge others are smarter and more knowledgeable than I then why are you argueing against us? ;-). It seems reasonable to accept this concensus especially since there is little opposition. Could you quantify this statement? There is lots of opposition and it should be judged on the quality of the aurgument not the names or number of names attached to either side. Your continued use of this is a sign of the superior, holier than thou attitude of an elitist! And that is not reasonable - except to an elitist. Now -- how do you know the Sun is 'hotter'? How do you know that other planets are hotter? How do you know that the Earth has changed its temperature -- warming and cooling? Surely you are not trusting all those scientists with a private agenda (Hi Jack!) to tell the truth? They are the ones after all who are responsible for spreading lies about planetary climate are they not? I have not challenged all of mainstream science, just the idea of man-made global warming, so criticising my use of evidence from MS is silly (would this be an example of a straw-man?). So it sounds like you are saying that you will not accept reports from MS that might contradict man-made global warming? Sounds like your mind is made-up. I suggest that '... [a]ll the indications of man-made global warming are from computer models ...' is just not true. That is were it came from! Thats what stated it! simple data read from indicators such as ice cores. Simple? This isn't a model -- it's a simple record, a lot like the marks doting parents make on door edges to mark the height attained by their children, usually on their birthdays. When they attain puberty, it's reasonable to read this record and conclude that each year they have grown taller, just as it is possible to read in ice cores that there has been an imperceptible but inexorable increase in CO2 for some few centuries and to observe that this just happens to coincide with history spanning the industrial revolution. So you are saying that the warming caused by the co2 has been happening for several hundered years - actually preceeding the industrial revolution? The increase of co2 preceeded it's manufacture by man??? Global warming has been happening for several hundered years???? What happened to the global cooling of the last century that ended in the 70's or 80's. What about the global cooling alarmists of the 70's???? Are you so sure your ice cores are properly correlated to time? are you so sure there is no migration of co2 in ice sheets? Are you so sure that co2 is the cause of global warming? If the Sun is getting hotter, it will -- as you suggest -- cause a temperature increase, all other things being equal, but this is all the more reason that we should not exacerbate it. The warming/co2 causal relationship has not been proven and your suggestion is clearly alarmist. I've presented you with a realistic cause for global warming with reports from a community you seem to have the most faith in and you simply dismiss the point. It is a reasonable explanation for what we see. Your mind must already be made up. While I haven't seen it mentioned, ultimately the 'greener' nuclear technology, while it does not contribute greenhouse gasses, it does contribute an increased heat load which will add to temperature rise which will evaporate more water which will raise the global temperature further. Everything seems to have a sting in the tail does it not? I guess we should ban smoking and camp fires too! And quite moving around so much, you're exacerbating the problem!!! Now when it suits the fundamentalist fraternity, the most improbable, ethereal coincidence is loudly touted as conclusive evidence of some fantastic event. Yet when sober scientists following their curiosity -- which is what science is all about -- come to an overwhelming concensus, these same fundamentalists condemn this concensus as a conspiracy. For what purpose beggars the imagination. Just what are the problems? How will we be harmed by a wiser management of our resources? While there is a decided danger if the scientific concensus is correct, I don't see a danger if it is not correct and we still implement the corrective measures being suggested. You see no danger in forcing people to live differently against thier will? You see no danger in severly limiting what allows our modern lifestyles? You see no danger at all in implementing severe restrictions on people? Amos 5:13; Proverbs 13:16; 22:3 Tell me, in your opinion, are the people plotting the path of asteroids and comets with a view to detecting those which might impact the Earth (remember that one or more of the fragments of the Shoemaker-Levy comet which hit Jupiter would have devastated the whole of the Earth) wasting their time and the contents of the public purse? What does this have to do with our discusion? Comets and asteroids are out there and we could certainly discuss the use of funds, but co2 and global warming are not linked in a causal relationship. Finally -- "I admit ..." "I don't know ...". Sorry but I don't see a conflict. Hints? You don't know, yet you are willing to get in line behind others who would force people to live & behave differently. You are even a spokesperson for this thing you "don't know". History is full of people like you. I take back calling you a Lemming, I'll have to think up something more appropriate and much less innocent than that. If you truly believe in man-made global warming that will be the disaster usually proposed - have you stopped driving or flying? Have you stopped using electricity? How far will you go to support that which you "don't know"? Neville J This is the whole issue. Global warming is the cause, increased CO2 ("greenhouse gas") is the effect. Also, your position regarding the correctness of the majority has been proven wrong to your satisfaction (though not to the satisfaction of the majority on this forum) before, regarding the "heretic," Galilei. First item first -- why does global warming show such a close correlation with the industrial revolution (which just coincidentally -- no connection at all apparently (gentle sarcasm) began an increasing and continuing conversion of solid and liquid carbon compounds to CO2 plus other compounds) if the latter is not -- at the least -- contributary to the former? And if it is all down to the Sun, where is the evidence that the Sun has been on an increasing energy output for the same period of time? Bit suspicious that! Second item -- I can't recall this item. It would seem that you can. Give me the reference and I'll confess again -- that should warm the cockels of your heart! Regarding the "... correctness of the majority ...", please re-read "Re:666" "From Paul Deema Mon May 28 14:48:56 2007". Re conspiracy theories -- they certainly are "... found under every rock ... '. I Googled 'conspiracy theories' and got 1,600,000 hits and while many of these are people indulging their own particular brand of paranoira, many, many of these hits are sites devoted to listing thousands of other 'conspiracies'. Just how many of these should I hold to my bosom? If only there were just a fraction of this many hits devoted to rational opposition to the global warming concesus, I would be familiar with the relevant arguments, but all I seem to be able to find are sites which support the concept. Now you're not going to try to convince me that there is a conspiracy to stop them showing up I hope -- this isn't China yet. Philip M Concerning your concerns about water. Yes we are surrounded by it, but, if my memory serves me well (and I admit it doesn't always oblige) only 3% (or was it 7%?) is fresh. All your objections result from the fact that each year there are more of us. Someone needs to tell us all forcefully that we've been fruitful -- we've close to filled the Earth. It's time to stop already. In the expectation that the population will not stop expanding, we need rules. There are quite a few doomsday novels in the SF genre which explore these phenomena -- "The Death of Grass" (UK "No Blade of Grass") by John Christopher comes to mind. Mankind has a history of acting ugly when a basic comodity runs short. The idea that you are going to satisfy everyone with (impersonal) your solution is fanciful to say the least. But rules -- any rules -- are necessary to avoid a greater catastrophe. You just have to resign yourself to the idea that you are not going to get just what you want in the interest of the greater good. Time for bed. Paul D --------------------------------- How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!