John and Randy, It did seem that my point was missed altogether.
OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you. Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will happen, we don't have enough data AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough data. Sun going Supernova: Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Global Warming (notice I said "Global Warming" not "Anthropic Global Warming".) Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. Sun going Supernova: Expensive and draconian to protect against. Global Warming: Expensive and draconian to protect against. We don't even know if it is indeed happening. So, a lot of "may", "if" and "possibility". Why should we implement draconian measures to correct these "may", "if" and "possibility"? Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: John Berry To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something. The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely. And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture outside of the solar system. That is something I very much would like to further. But surely you can see the difference between something that there is evidence for that we are likely causing or contributing to, .vs something that we have no control over (by any normal means) and no protection against (by any normal means) that is not a very immediate threat (AFAIK). John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: John, This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. OK, let me throw that premise back at you. What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going supernova? What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going supernova? After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than there is of AGW. I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to spell it out for you. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: John Berry To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do anything about it? What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: Randy, It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a "problem", we must first make "sure" there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a "possibility". This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats. I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to promote their "Environmental Worshipping" agenda. That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or not, it's just common sense. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy wuller To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... Jojo: I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. Ransom ----- Original Message ----- From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... Here's some new data that is "worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating....??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link "definitely" shows that Global warming is occuring that is "correlated" to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the atmosphere.... ???? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... right? Jojo PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12
