How do you know that the crowd is correct on global warming being caused by human activities? What are the big reasons that you accept it? Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: j a From j a Tue May 29 20:38:54 2007 You act as though perfection of character and purpose were behind the movement of the sciences. Science for the sake of true understanding and true knowledge. Actually, it is driven by the same characteristics that drive religions and politics and every other faucet of human endeavour. Selfishness, fear, greed, control, etc... The second greatest disappointment of my life was when I realised that there was no correlation between intelligence and morality. Until that time, I had naively assumed that intelligent people would naturally deduce that an altruistic lifestyle was the proper path. After that time, I realised that the selfish behaviour of which you speak was in fact the driving force in many people. Later still, I was to realise that all the moral values from altruism to selfishness exist in all of us, in varying degrees, and that the degree of the quality in question varies with the situation and the precise time at which it is being examined. There is no black/white good/bad stop/go division in behaviour but rather every such thing consists of an infinite gradation from kind to cruel, generous to miserly, empathy to indifference etc. So we can expect this to apply to those who pursue a path of scientific investigation, healing the sick, preaching the Gospel or any other endeavour. You seem able to grasp the "conspiracy theory" if it's in the minority, why can't you grasp that it may be in the majority? How about the opportunists with the desire and resources to exploit the majority? I don't believe anything I said excludes the possibility of the majority conspiring against a minority. The definition of conspiracy does not mention minority or majority, however I can't conceive of a million people cooperating actively and knowingly to deceive a thousand people. Such a view is usually diagnosed as paranoia. All that aside, what I said originally was "...exploit this minority view..." [emphasis added]. The expression "...exploit the majority?" gives a meaning which I did not express. As long as you follow "the crowd" may find yourself to be a lemming. . I follow the crowd when I decide that the crowd is correct. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Philip M From philip madsen Tue May 29 21:28:11 2007 A quick short response is needed here.. No-one is denying global warming and climate change. QUITE THE CONTRARY.. The bad science being criticised is that climate change is man made , in general, and by CO2 specifically. Put your mind to this one specific point. Of all the so called greenhouse "gases" the most effective is water vapour. CO2 as part of the atmosphere contributes very much less than 1% of that due to water. Further of all the CO2 in the atmosphere,, that due to mankind in all its forms is still a minor contributor.. You can look up the exact figures for yourself.. I'll accept for the moment at face value you reference to water vapour being the most effective contributor to greenhouse warming (GHW). (Strictly this is not accurate -- increasing H2O vapour contributes to warming, stable means no change in temperature). Referring to the panel below from Wiki, it is stated that increased water vapour is caused by increased 'anthropogenic gases'. H2O vapour may be more effective as a GHW agent but it is caused by increased evaporation caused by increased temperature caused by (among others) increased CO2. Get the CO2 down, the temperature will fall, evaporation will fall and less H2O vapour will decrease the temperature further. If the effect is positive going up -- worrying -- it will be negative -- comforting -- coming down. All of the ice core samples from around the world show an exact correlation between temperature warming and CO2. EXCEPT that the temperatue rise precedes the CO2 by many years, and that by the way is a natural expectation. No mechanism for this suggests itself to me. How about a hint? Further, I do not believe these facts because of the notable scientists saying so.. I have never heard of these people.. I believed these facts from my own physics training and knowledge, and have always ever since the scam was first promulgated along with the Ozone hole fiasco, known it to be false science. It is because I have none of the accepted credentials (other than trade, technical and teacher) necessary to add to the debate, that I use those who do have such qualifications. Because they are correct and the others are very wrong, I suggest a read of basic physics printed pre 1950/60, on the effects of Gases specifically water vapour in the atmosphere, including the relationships of Oxygen, ozone and UV radiation. There is only one greenhouse gas worthy of the name... Its water vapour, and its technically not a gas. But Philip, science moves on like everything. Basic principles I agree do not change, however when change is introduced, especially to complex models, it is rare that perfect (or nearly so) predictions are made. Something nearly always jumps up and bites you on the ankle. Such was the phenomenon of chlorine in the atmosphere and its disastrous effect on O3. Besides -- the eternal question -- who, and how could there be, profit from such a cry of 'Wolf!'? I will deal with your full text at a later time soon. From philip madsen Tue May 29 21:45:53 2007 Ja speaks true, except I would add; when men allow themselves to be governed by Selfishness, fear, greed, control, etc..., they place themselves outside of science, having no claim to title, in the same way as do men put themselves outside of Christ and have no claim to title in religion. And I added emphasis to the best of what Ja says below. "You seem able to grasp the "conspiracy theory" if it's in the minority, why can't you grasp that it may be in the majority? How about the opportunists with the desire and resources to exploit the majority?" Addressed above. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From Wikipaedia In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[9] Changes in water vapor may also have indirect effects via cloud formation. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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. --------------------------------- The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.