On 1/28/08, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 2:29 PM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hate this use of the word Hoax. A hoax doesn't harm people, except > > maybe the pride of the gullible. If the global warming fanatics are > > wrong, then many people will be harmed by their actions. If they're > > right then serious actions should be taken, though not unnecessarily the > > ones they propose . Either way the debate isn't helped by the use of > > improper terms. > > > > I know I shouldn't, but I must: > > Okay, tell me, what horrible things would happen if the global warming > fanatics are wrong? (BTW, using the word "fanatics" is rather > telling, no?) > > Let's see, we'd lower pollution levels, reduce our reliance on > non-renewable, toxic, noxious energy resources such as petroleum and > coal, we'd develop local sustainable sources of energy using such > things as wind and the sun, we'd reduce garbage, we'd get more people > out of cars and into mass transit, onto bikes and walking - possibly > even becoming more fit and healthy in the process. > > I'm missing where the "harm" part comes into play... > > :-) > > cheers, > frank >
Frank, The only way to achieve the goals that are supposedly needed are to effectively remove 3rd world industrialization while also massively reducing 1st world emissions. Effectively you'd need to shut down most of the global economy to prevent the earths climate returning to conditions similar to what they were 1000 years ago (The Medieval Optimum period) which was notably warmer than today. And even then the problem won't go away (Hint, no AGW on Mars and Venus, both of which have been warming up of late). Global Warming is a reality. So is Global Cooling. Anthrogenic Global Warming does not have sufficient data available to decide whether it's a real issue. Frankly, that requires a couple decades of data we don't have, as well as a good baseline on average global temperature that is also lacking as the earth is likely still recovering from the Little Ice Age that occurred beginning around 1200AD and so the temperature data used for a baseline is known to be historically untrustworthy. Also nobody has been able to come up with a climate model which regresses properly, so Climate Modelling is essentially useless in predicting the future. And it doesn't help that if Kyoto was implemented fully tomorrow it would have a near-immeasurable effect on global temperature (less than 1/10th of a degree Celsius by 2100) as CO2 is accountable for a very small part of the Greenhouse Effect (which is almost entirely caused by Water Vapour). Atmospheric CO2 is responsible for only 6-8% (I've seen varying numbers) of the Greenhouse Effect. And Human Emissions are only a relatively small part of that. There are far more important environmental issues to be spending money on than AGW and Kyoto. Particularly reductions in emissions of actual pollutants, tech transfer of cleaner designs and systems to the 3rd world to prevent them running into many of the pollution and toxic waste issues that the 1st world has experienced and found solutions for, cleaning up contaminated sites and watersheds, especially in the former Soviet countries and more. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
