On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Robert Munn<[email protected]> wrote: > Irrelevant. The stated goal of climate change alarmists is to maintain the > planetary environment at its current state.
I'm not sure this is true. I understand it to currently be reducing man's impact on global climate. Even the article you posted agrees that CO2 emissions warms the planet - including those which are man-made. > As I have been saying for years, > the entire notion of the planetary environment as a static system that could > be maintained in its current state is patently ridiculous. Until someone > implements a planetary-wide Start-Trek style weather control system, our > ability to control the planetary environment is minimal at best. It's natural for the climate to change. I think the speed of change is what is called into question by that article. It's changed alot over the years, but rarely does it change so rapidly as was seen 55 million years ago (and potentially today). The article seems to indicate something unusual happened 55 million years ago to cause the rapid change. It suggests that answer may lead to helping us determine why things are rapidly warming now as well. An event that only happened once every 55 million years is definitely worth looking into. > Reducing pollution is a laudable goal, Agreed. > but in and of itself reducing man-made CO2 > emissions provides zero guarantees as to the future of the climate. Though - according to the article, not reducing it (all else being the same) would potentially cause a change (warmer) in the climate. > The article demonstrates that we could reduce man-made CO2 emissions to zero > and still face massive global warming OR massive global cooling on a scale > unseen in human history, and we have no idea what might cause it and no > ability to do anything about it. Yes, in the case of this 55 million year event occurring again. The article also does not exclude the possibility of the relatively small increase of CO2 55 million years ago igniting a runaway chain reaction that cause the rest of the warming. It does say that we should try to work to understand what caused the climate change 55 million years ago. I don't really see any argument in that article **against** reducing CO2 emissions today. -Cameron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:300017 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
