On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:40:00 +0000, Strider wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:53:22 GMT, GuidoXVI
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:27:05 +0000, Strider wrote:


That is my point. There is not enough proven data to justify large
social changes. Political arguments are rarely, if ever about
anything more than political power. Therefore they cannot be proven
mathematically. Were there enough verifialbe facts ( A causes B and C
will most likely fix it) there would be little argument.

There is no doubt among scientists that increased CO2 in the
atmosphere can cause a greenhouse effect. What's not clear is how big
an effect it can have, or how soon. What is clear is that if we do
nothing, the world will be warmer, and the seas higher, than if we
don't, at least for the next few centuries.

Frankly, I'm willing to let the next millennium take care
of itself for the moment.

What facts are available fairly well proves that the climate is
warming up, at least over the last 150 years. The reasons for this
warming are theory. Therefore, any fix might theoretically work. The
question, then, is will this fix do the job or will it make the
situation worse?

See above. The more accurate models of the atmosphere have
a close correlation with the data. That's the best anyone can do.
"Theory" isn't synonymous with "unproven", it means "an explanation".
Theories aren't proved, they can only be disproved. The greenhouse
gas theory's been around for some time, and it has yet to be
disproved.

Nova did a story not too long ago about measuring the
Antarctic ice cap. Take a look on the PBS website. That's a start,
at least. You can also do a Google search, or read books on biology,
physics, and climatology. All that boring stuff.

Nova just repeats the researcher's theories, presented as fact BTW,
and usually without bothering to let the viewer know that it's a
theror.

That's because Nova's audience is mostly smart enough to tell
the difference between facts gathered and conclusions based on fact.
When there is little disagreement on the basics of a theory, scientists
tend to talk about it as fact. It's certainly not a habit peculiar
to scientists. People in my business do the same thing all the time,
even though most of us have never even seen an electron. Circuits just
become more understandable if you imagine electrons (and holes) exist.
For that matter, priests talk that way about their favorite subject
with a whole lot less reason.


None of this is shown to be caused by humans. In fact, it can pretty
well be shown to have happened in the past, long before people could
have had a role.

You no doubt believe that smoking has never been proved to
cause cancer. The mechanisms for CO2 production and distribution in
the atmosphere are well understood. Some of them have human causes.
No natural process creates CFCs in any quantity worth mentioning.
These are works of man.

(Straw argument, cancer, noted)

Actually not. It's an analogy. There was clinical, experimental,
and statistical data to indicate that smoking caused cancer. Many
people still chose not to believe it, because their freedom to fill
their (and our) lungs with noxious gases was being threatened. The
excuses were similar - 'correlation doesn't prove causality', 'mice
are getting cancer, so what?', and, my personal favorite 'my aunt
is 102 years old, and she smokes like a chimney, drinks a fifth of
scotch a week, and has unprotected sex every day'.

Correlation doesn't prove causality, laboratory experiments
were mostly done with lower mammals, and there probably is someone
who has an aunt who's 102 years old and smokes like a chimney. The
fact remains, however, that the "theory" that smoking causes cancer
fits the facts known, and is not contradicted by any. This is also
true with the theory of the effect of greenhouse gases on our
atmosphere.

Your assumption that the greenhouse theory of global warming is man
made. I'd give you this one except that global warming and cooling
have happened many, many times in the past quite without the help of
humanity. I don't think they quite have a handle on those reasons as
of yet.

You misread my statement. Added CO2 pollution and CFCs
are works of man. They are known to cause at least some of the current
warming trend, at least over those last 150 or so years you mention.
Reducing or eliminating them will at least make the problem less
severe.

As I said before, there is at least some evidence that
the world was in a warming trend anyway, for at least the last 10,000
years or so. That's why there's not a mile of ice on top of my house.
There have been small variations in this trend, of course, one of
which caused the concerns expressed in the article that started
this thread. If it really turns out that we're headed for an ice age
in the longer term, I'm not too worried. We've proved that we can
create substantial amounts of greenhouse gases when we put our minds
to it.

Religion is about faithin something that cannot be proven. This is
exactly what the eco movement is about., faith is the unproven.

That there are people who take ecology as a religion is
unfortunate, but it doesn't mean there's not a problem. No more
than the existence of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson proves
there's no god.

Our debate is not about the existance of a problem. We agee the
climate is getting warmer right now. the debate is about the validity
of the theories on the reason.

It's also about the nature of science, and whether a
preponderance of evidence in a particular direction is enough to
warrant a change in policy, or we should wait until there's a
unified theory of atmospherics, or until the last crank and the
last paid consultant are satisfied. It may already be too late, but
I think it's time to get on with fixing it.