Is not screwing with nature more than we have to, not polluting indiscriminately, not interfering with a natural system more than we must inherently the safer option?
If I were proposing some massive operation, some space shield or some active solution you could have a point. But you are suggesting it is safer to continue polluting and disrupting the environment because we don't know enough and we will know better in the future. This does seem more like a contrived excuse to not rock the apple cart than a genuine intelligent action. John On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > John, you mention a tipping point of some sort as being possible. I tend > to agree that it seems likely that some event triggered by the Earth's > heating will cause another unexpected one to occur. We have seen evidence > that the climate has undergone many rises and falls over eons. My thoughts > are that this is the natural consequences of having a complex system with > many periodic as well as asynchronous drivers. I am not convinced that the > turn around can be boiled down to one tipper, but there most likely is a > group of related effects involved. > > The one situation that has always been observed is that the climate is > changing. If this is true, then we will be subjected to either a warming > climate or cooling climate that would happen whether or not we are around. > The recent static spell that has been alluded to for the last decade or so > demonstrates that we do not understand the system very well since it is > outside of the range of our models. We must not have too much faith in > these constructs. They are only as good as our current understanding of > the Earth and its climate system, which is improving daily. I have seen > convincing evidence that cloud formation as a result of cosmic rays is one > very key factor which is not even taken into account by the models. And, > if you dig into it, you will see that the current models make wild > assumptions with respect to positive feedback effects of the calculated > carbon dioxide warming and water vapor. It is acknowledged that water > vapor is the major heat trapper with carbon dioxide far behind. Only if > you assume that carbon dioxide achieves star performance by forcing water > vapor to do 8 or so times its relatively minor drive do you get the large > warming expected by the models. (COP of 8 maybe?) > > You might ask yourself how is a tipping point possible when none of the > models suggest such a thing. If one or more truly exist, then the models > must be trash. How could they miss such a major event if they represent > the climate to any reasonable degree? So, when I hear climatologist's > allude to tipping points that may exist, I equate that statement to saying > that our models are most likely seriously in error. > > The only sensible course of action is to sit back and enjoy the warm > weather until it is determined that we are indeed the cause of dangerous > global warming. And thank God every day that it is not getting colder > instead since that is the other much worse option. Keep working on LENR > and other sources of energy which will eventually replace most of the > fossil fuel usage. > > You mentioned that it would not be wise to wait until the fire gets > bigger before you attack it. Sometimes that is exactly the best plan of > action. It is wise to make the call to the fire department before you go > out to the barn with your bucket of water to fight a moderate sized fire. > Chances are you will get burned by the flames that are already too large > for your bucket. Once the well trained fighters arrive, the fire is > quickly put out. These fire fighters are standing in for the future > technologies that will come along much better equipped than we are today to > attack global warming if that is actually required. > > Please do not consider me to be sinking my head in the sand hoping that > the predator will pass. A well reasoned and proven approach is far > superior to a mad emotional rush toward a problem. Panic hardly ever > results in success and there is little reason to do so with the enormous > time frame at our disposal. Perform the science first and then lets figure > out the best solution. > > When I hear the expression "The Science Is Settled", it makes my blood > boil. It has been stated many times before in our history and it is as > wrong now as then. Why waste time following LENR when the science has been > settled (according to most physicists) that it is not possible? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 1:54 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > ... > My understanding is that if a tipping point exists and it well might, then > the process of either melting the ice caps or paradoxically triggering an > ice age might be unable to be stopped at least by any reasonable means. > In fact inertia alone is enough to make a situation very hard to stop. > > This sound like very irresponsible logic. > Compared to ignoring a fire because it isn't very big yet, or isn't quite > at your place yet. > > but we do need to worry about our grandchildren. >> > > Ok, good save. > > ..... >
