In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Habr" wrote:

"Demosthenes" wrote in message
. ..

Like the Catholic Church of Galileo's day, the Bush
Administration makes decision based on faith, not on reality.


So, lookin' at only part of the record is reality?

Sport Pilot wants to look at (1) only Atlantic storms that (2) hit the
US.
The Science study looked at all storms since 1970. You tell me which
is
looking at "only part of the record."

So? Apparently it has escaped your notice that I am not Sport Pilot.

I'll have to explain, but before I do I have to ask you some questions so
I
can know what to explain.

Are you aware the sun is a variable star?

Not under the definition used by astronomers.


And the effect this has on the
climate of the earth?

Yes. Apparently you are not.

Are you? Apparently not! Apparently you are unaware that when the sun
produces more radiation the earth recieves more radiation.

As I said, you are unaware of the research here showing solar activity cannot
account for more than 1/3 of the current warming.





Are you aware of plate tectonics?

Are you aware of quantum mechanics? Both as relevant to the current
warming.


Are they? Can we assume that you think that the climate would be the same
today if the continents didn't drift?


How far have they drifted in the past 120 years?



And are you aware of approximately how
long ago the continents arrived at roughly their current positions? And
are
you aware of why the current continental positions affect the climate
differently than previous positions?


Are you aware of what the universe was like 1 sec after the Big Bang?
Again,
just as relevant.

Are they? Can we assume that you think that the climate would be the same
today if the continents didn't drift?

See above.




Are you aware of the past climate (before 1970)?

Are you aware of the past anything (before 1970)?

There are many more questions but that will do for a start.


But we don't have (good enough) data for the whole record, or so the
claim
goes.

How do you prove that Atlantic hurricanes are getting more numerous
and
stronger due to global warming?

You can't. But you can prove they're getting stronger, and you know
their
fuel is warm water. I assume you can put 2 and 2 together.


Is the water warmer than it was in the 1940s?

Since the earth is, it follows that the water is too.


Is the water warmer than it was in the 1720?

See above.



How do you prove it is due to global warming

I'm sorry, I discounted Klingons or magic beans.


( which by the by, you seem to
mean only how humans affect global warming) and not due to other factors
such as climate cycles? But if there is no before 1970 then there are no
cycles, right?

What climate cycle would account for 120 years of warming at unprecedented
rates?

And why do you continue to deny the effects CO2 has?




I haven't why do you continue to insist I have?

Why do you continue to insist that is the ONLY variable in climate change?

(1) It's the biggest one.
(2) It's the only one we can do something about.





Do you refrain from explaining to politicians all the reasons for
global
warming?

Why did we have a lull in Atlantic hurricane activity and strength
from
about 1970 to 1995, global cooling?

We didn't. Next question.

Before 1970 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic
hurricanes?

After 1995 did we have the same number and strenght of Atlantic
hurricanes?

So you haven't looked at the article yet.




When we have a lull in activity in about 20 years what are you going
to
say
to the politicians?




What happens if we have several El Nino years in a row during this
cycle?
How do you explain it to others, shrug your shoulders?




What are you going to say to future politicians when the earth starts
cooling again? Or do you just hope you'll be dead by then and won't
have
to
explain it?

That we averted a catastrophe?

Even if we humans do nothing to avert it?