line of the explanation.
The term "so-called" scientists is also a little less than helpful.
The theory is sound - that's why it's a theory and not a hypothesis. The
theory is not, however, fact. The generally followed pattern with all
theories however is that as new information is added they become more
refined.
It's also a common mistake among people to assume that the Kyoto protocol
was, at any time, meant to be a "solution". It was simply intended as a
step on the path. No true "solution" can be defined because the problem is
indistinct. All we can do is take steps in the most logical direction.
The is definitely sound basis that some atmospheric pollution is cause by
natural causes (although forest fires are just as much a contributing source
as volcanoes on the whole) but it is also clear that much of that pollution
is directly caused by human actions. Especially since many of those
pollutants do not naturally occur. It's at least possible, tho arguably not
probable that these human actions may be overwhelming the naturally
available carbon dioxide sinks.
Since it's possible (and arguably probable) work needs to be done to enhance
or topple the theory.
There are benefits to cutting emissions for our own convenience (less smog,
less grime, less localized environmental impact, etc). Cleaning up now has
its own rewards and may save us from disaster if the theory is verified.
I'd rather be looked back on from the future as overly cautious than
criminally selfish.
Also most global warming theorists are not claiming that this, right now, is
a period of warming. Rather the issue is the slight warming over centuries
do a (geologically speaking) nearly instantaneous emptying of some of the
largest Carbon Dioxide sinks in planetary history. The effects of this may
not be felt for hundreds of years. Also "Global Warming" is a misnomer in
some senses as many models show warming of only a few degrees to be enough
to effect radical changes. One of the possible results, for example, of
Global "Warming" is another ice age due to increased reflectivity.
I think your definition of "critical thinking" may be a bit off - it really
has nothing to do with criticism.
And, for the record, Yup - it's wicked cold here in Boston. (They've
actually already closed schools here due to predicted temps of 30 below
tomorrow)
But that has nothing to do with Global Warming.
Jim Davis
_____
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:02 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Wonder how Gore lost the election
I will be glad to give you some insights on the Global Warming "Theory"
Basically, all the so-called scientists are using the same historical data
to
reach their conclusions. That is, each side of the issue draws their own
conclusions based on the same history.
There is no sound basis for advancing the theory that by removing all fossil
fuel use throughout the U.S., and giving exceptions to the third world
countries
who are the worst of all, will do anything at all to clear the air. This is
what the Kyoto treaty would have done. No one has made a logical case for
taxing Americans and giving the money to third world countries would do
anything
to reduce or ameliorate atmospheric contaminants.
There is sound basis for concluding that atmospheric pollution has its root
source in volcanic activity over which man has no control.
Using the historical data from which the so-called scientists draw their
models,
there are indications of cycles of warming and cooling going on as far back
as
can be measured. Periods of drought and rainfall cycles are likewise
recorded
throughout history. No one has shown thus far, that any of the current
conditions indicate a cycle anywhere deeper than what has been recorded
before,
although all of the cycles have been connected to historical records of
volcanic
activity and the tons of matter and particles emitted into the atmosphere.
As for critical thinking, I believe there is plenty of critical thinking,
especially that which criticizes radicals who tend to believe "just
because."
Finally, no matter what, it is still really cold in New England!, from the
perspective of a Texan.
Of course, as an independent thinker, your mileage may vary.
D
Aspire to Inspire before you Retire or Expire!
: I'm not sure if you're serious (if you're not, sorry). but if you don't
: understand something perhaps you should learn.
:
: Arguing that there is no Global Warming because it's "cold outside" is
like
: saying the economy must be good "because I have a job" or that cancer
can't
: kill you because "my cousin lived through it".
:
: It's a rhetorical, anecdotal response to a subtle, systemic change where
: small factors play enormous roles.
:
: I don't care where you sit on the global warming issue - but mentioning
: current local temperatures as any sort of defense of- or offense against-
it
: is simply ludicrous.
:
: The biggest problem facing this country is a lack of critical thinking and
a
: horrid lack of general understanding about scientific issues facing a
modern
: world. In other words "education".
:
: Jim Davis
:
: _____
:
: From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:58 AM
: To: CF-Community
: Subject: Wonder how Gore lost the election
:
:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%
<http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401
%25>
: 5CPOL20040115b.html
:
: Last I looked, 13 degree in New York. -30 in some parts of Maine. Guess
: I should leave my swimsuit at home...
: _____
:
:
:
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
