Rick Monteverde wrote:
> Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not
> capable of doing anything practical to change it. 
> 
> Stephen, add your name to the list of those who choose to ignore the actual
> content of my posts

Was I responding directly to you?  Don't think so.  I was commenting on
a point Jed had mentioned.

In any case, from what I've read, the "experts", while not 100% certain
of the cause, are in near-universal agreement that it is *very* *likely*
that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.  One reason for
concluding this, which doesn't take a sophisticated model to understand
or reason about, is that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has been
skyrocketing in parallel with the global temperature, which is, as they
say, 'highly suggestive'.

If you don't agree with those statements, then I don't know where you
get your news but it's not the same science rags I see.

>From what I've read it's also the case that the long term climate on
Earth is highly unstable, according to the geological record.  We've
benefited from a relatively stable period which has lasted a good while
now.  Injecting a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere -- which,
again, I hope you admit humans have been doing -- could conceivably
destabilize things rather badly, sending the global climate into a
Superball mode, which is unlikely to be good for humans, animals, coral
reefs, or just about anybody else.

In the general science community I don't think anything I just said can
be considered "controversial" or even "doubtful".  And even if you think
the probability that the current changes are human-generated is smaller
than the numbers I've seen bandied about -- which, IIRC, range from ~65%
to ~90%  -- it's hard for me to understand how you can feel that efforts
to reduce the extremely high rate at which we're dumping CO2 into the
atmosphere can be misguided.  As someone put it, we're conducting an
experiment in terraforming on an enormous scale and if the results don't
work out well we're going to be in trouble.  Perhaps we should scale
back the pace of the "experiment", eh?

Reply via email to