Re: Where's Cheney

LOL. I could probably find quotes like that by "scientists" at the fringe
asserting that the holocaust didn't really happen.... You found a few
quotes that don't say much at all. you even resorted to The Oregon
Petition!?!?! Shame on you!! This is starting to remind me of creationists
who quote Behe (or any other scientist who has been torn a new *** by
the majority of his peers) and then say, "nope, there's no consensus on the
theory of evolution, see."

Here is a fact (one you first seemed to admit, but then you must've changed
your mind and googled for a few quotes): the scientific consensus is that
there is a link between global warming and severe, heat-fueled types of
weather phenomena, John. I don't have a Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences, but
have read enough to know that there is no longer any real and genuine debate
on the issue.... Nevermind the fact that it just makes complete sense.

I think I may be done "debating" you. Besides the things I mentioned
elsewhere, from one of your quotes and something you said in this last post,
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're one of that quickly dwindling,
now almost non-existent minority who believes that global warming does not
even exist. Am I right??

"John P" <Private@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0_KdncRk3dRg_obeRVn-uA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "sp" wrote in a message
>
>> Good lord..... Your "reasons" are not reasons at all. Is the mayor of New
>> Orleans, the one you blame, in control of FEMA, or the Dept. of Homeland
>> Security, or all the other disaster preparedness resources of the feds,
>> which post 9-11 has undeniably taken on central responsibility in
>> disaster situations such as these??
>
> In the post 9/11 plan, the first actions are to be taken by local
> authorities. The mayor had a resonsibility to play the proper role. He
> chose to ride it out and wait for federal money. There is no one to blame
> for him making that choice other than him.
>
>> Now, as to the link between global warming and an increase in severe
>> weather of this sort, I'm not going to do your homework for you John. The
>> scientific community does not seem to be in doubt about it
>
> OK. To be fair, I won't do your homework for you either, but I'll give you
> some clues and help you get started.
>
> "We haven't really seen a long-term increase in hurricane frequency over
> the 20th century. Instead, we see periods of high hurricane activity that
> last for several decades followed by periods of low hurricane activity.
> Unfortunately, during the mid-1990s it looks like we reentered an active
> phase that will persist for some time."
>
> "Just about everyone is now aware of climate change, so people are much
> more likely to make a connection between weather events and the climate.
> When an extreme weather event occurs, it is not unusual for people to ask
> if it is the result of global warming. Because of the link between higher
> ocean temperatures and hurricanes, there is speculation that hurricanes
> will increase in frequency or intensity in a warmer world, with higher
> wind speeds and greater precipitation. We have more confidence in the
> link between global warming and increased intensity and precipitation than
> in increased frequency. However, higher ocean temperatures also appear to
> influence the track of hurricanes, increasing the likelihood of hurricanes
> tracking through the Caribbean or making landfall on the U.S. east coast.
> Our ability to predict the potential response of hurricanes to global
> warming is very limited, so there is little that can be said with
> confidence at the moment."
>
> "We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of
> the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings;
> climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps
> referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the
> mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000
> scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol
> because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing
> discernible climate change.""
>
> "In January, Bellamy told the Royal Institution in London, "Global warming
> is largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of
> money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed... The climate change
> people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do
> not prove anything.""
>
>> In fact i'm pretty sure it's a solid consensus.
>
> Looks like you have your homework cut out for you.
>
>> It is common knowledge that policies changed right now could not possibly
>> have effects on the climate for many years, no?
>
> Your use of negatives make it unclear to me exactly what you mean here...
> but I think I get the general idea.
> If I have an answer for you, it would be that I agree that policies we
> have now can obviously impact the future.
> I also agree with those scientists who believe that it is highly
> egotistical for humans to believe they can significantly change golbal
> climate.
>
>> The bottom line right now is that Bush's executive department agencies
>> are the ones ultimately tasked with responding to these kinds of
>> disasters, and that will remain true even if lots of people don't want to
>> believe it.
>
> Wrong. Everyone on a city, county, state AND federal level is responsible
> for responding for these kinds of disasters.
>


.