It is OK Ed. I believe that the oceans are rising to some degree. I also feel that the climate is getting warmer as you and many others consider well proven. My hang up is in timing and figuring out the best course of action to follow. There is little doubt that many will be displaced if the ocean levels rise to the level that is expected, but I am hesitant to accept a new theory that the levels will increase by 9 meters in the time frame suggested.
I consider a quick action to be dangerous at this time and might well put many others in peril due to inefficiency. And you are right, it is too important to ignore. It might be that I am overconfident in the improvements to technology that I have witnessed during my lifetime. Things that appeared impossible just a short while ago now are common. When I was younger radios were constructed from tubes which performed the tasks that were considered necessary at the time. Now, if it does not fit into your hand and take pictures, it should be trashed. Of course this is a result of the solid state revolution. A similar story could be told about computers, or most other devices and technologies that have improved relentlessly over the years. In my vision, I see the global climate change problem in similar terms. At the moment, it looks hopeless since we do not see much opportunity for a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted or the likelihood for future improvements. But, I see beyond that. If Mr. Rossi and the many other members of our field come through, then the problem caused by mankind will vanish in a hurry. And, even if LENR does not become our savior, I firmly believe something else will come to the rescue. I may have made this point before and I believe it will come to pass. So, if you shared my optimistic beliefs I think that you would understand the reason for my position in this matter. Why panic if you are not too worried about the future? Perhaps my outlook is related to the fact that I have eventually been able to solve just about every difficult technical problem that has been assigned to me. This requires the ability to follow the faintest of clues as I have put together a coherent model of the problem at hand, always checking to ensure that new facts fit into their proper place. One must then be prepared to rebuild the model when it fails to perform as expected. Jed has written at least one book which demonstrates great confidence in the future of mankind. He shows excellent incite into how we might be living and enjoying a life of leisure as a result of advancements in science that he predicts. So, I have to wonder why he now seems to be so concerned about issues that should have technical solutions. It is not obvious to me why this disconnect exists. Perhaps that is the root of the disagreement between us; I believe that he actually sees the future while he is uncertain of his vision. I see little reason to extend this discussion since it tends to be divisive and each side has strong opinions that are unlikely to be modified. I promise to remain silent unless someone baits me with a statement that is far out of reality such as a 9 meter sea level rise in 90 years. That is what it took this time. Maybe next time I will await until it becomes 100 meters. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 Dave, I hate to get involved in another debate war, but the climate change issue is too important to ignore. The ice is melting world-wide and the average temperature is increasing. The glaciers are melting and the Arctic regon is losing ice. This fact is acknowledged by all sides in the debate. The question is only about the cause. Is the cause part of the natural cycle or is it caused by man? Either way, the ocean is and will continue to rise and people had better plan to move if they are in the affected areas. I believe, like many other people, that if the main caused is CO2 production, we are too late to stop the process or even to slow it down. Therefore, the discussion about CO2 is irrelevant. The discussion now must be how do we respond to the loss of land presently occupied by millions of people and important infrastructure. If you want to discuss something important, I suggest you focus on this question. Ed On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:03 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have not claimed to be an expert in climate change and merely have an interest. I also have an interest in the well being of the other people on the earth that we share. You can be assured that I would be very vocal about climate change affecting us if I felt that it was a serious risk to mankind and the remainder of the environment and that now was the only time to react. So far I have only heard strong sounds emitted by the groups seeking immediate action who conveniently leave out information that runs counter to their beliefs. This is unbalanced and dangerous for those that will be left out of progress due to wasted actions. It is obvious that every time a storm hits, or a dry spell occurs, etc. that it becomes blamed upon climate change. This is sheer nonsense and even the climatologists try to distance their predictions to some degree from immediate weather effects. Are you convinced that there are not going to be many positive effects due to future climate variations, whether caused by man or not? Would you have the same beliefs if you were living toward the end of the last ice age? The fear of change is an easy one to acquire, but should not dominate ones thinking. I make an attempt to not panic in this case and have faith that we will find a way to solve any major problems which occur and take advantage of the good things that happen. Have you given the Danish scientist Henrick Svensmark's theory about cosmic rays being a major climate driver equal time? There is remarkable correlation between what he has theorized and the climate of the earlier Earth. Anyone who would strongly jump at the suggestion that the ocean levels will rise 9 meters due to a theory of a couple of guys should be willing to analyze what might be a better explanation. My personal opinion is that now is the time to perform the needed research and figure out what really is happening. The science is not settled as some would like us to believe and the cost of immediate action is much too great unless a truly catastrophic future is looming. I detect a mixed bag of future effects that we have a significant amount of time to optimize. Furthermore, as time progresses our sciences and technology will improve and any mitigation will become that much easier to achieve. All of us need to have a little more faith in future generations. Jed, it makes little difference whether or not you believe me. We each have our opinions that differ. I have given you a name to follow up upon of a scientist that does have hand's on experience that I lack and who is well respected. You can choose not to give consideration to the other side of this discussion, but I know that you would be ahead to open your mind just a tiny bit. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it will become obvious? Most experts say the changes are obvious now. And irrefutable. Perhaps you disagree. I tend to believe experts who have done hands-on research, based on my experience with cold fusion. Let me put it this way: If you have published a paper on this subject I will take your views a lot more seriously. - Jed
