<x-charset ISO-8859-1>On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:37:38 +0900, you wrote: >>Global Warming >> >>I donç intend to be a heretic and only want to >>mention that the Earthç climate follows a strange >>attractor and there are mathematical reasons, verified >>by experiment, why itç not possible to know what will >>happen to global temperature with the addition of CO2. >> The temp may go up, go down, or remain about the >>same. Hereç a readable introduction to the subject >>from Harvard Science Review >> >>Chaos All Around >> >>http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/pdfswinter2003/young29-32.pdf >> >>Best regards, >> >>Ken > >Hello Ken > >I'm sure you'll be able to find equally scientific views also duly >verified by experiment that claim just the opposite, and yet others >that claim something different to both. CO2 is not the only factor at >work, and I don't think anyone claims it is, or at least not anybody >to be taken half-seriously. > >What it all boils down to (or perhaps up to) is a clash between two >incompatible approaches. One is the old way, soon to follow the >dinosaurs, that maintains that "There's no proof that..." so let's >get on with business-as-usual, while increasing the PR budget by 10% >to ensure that anything that might begin to look like proof gets >discredited, no matter how, chuck some more money at the Wise Use >think-tanks so spin can continue to accomplish for public opinion >what reason can't, and chuck a bit more at the FCC lobbyists to help >that along a bit too, and maybe appoint a new Risk Assessment manager >to make sure all risks are taken by others, though the causes may be >ours, and that none of it hits the bottom line, since that's all that >really counts.
I'm sorry but I don't have time right now to go through your whole thing. But what I wanted to say was this. I tried to read through Ken's Harvard-y sort of paper and got through about half of it. I'm sure it's a half-credible attempt to summarize the current state of some thinking on chaos theory, but they drew such huge conclusions that didn't seem to me to follow entirely that I just couldn't finish. Harvard, MIT, whatever, there may be some genius in the ideas of some of these people (Lorenz, etc.) but that does not justify blowing off global warming concerns, and I think interpretationists who interpret it as such are doing a disservice not only to our concerns for the future of life on Earth but also to any value the theories of Lorenz and others may hold. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
