Re: Gore - A Pathetic Embarrassment To US Science - so sey the y lying GOP shills


"Florida" <demeter547opine@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150636810.619317.321020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Florida" <demeter547opine@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150587135.085389.8630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My personal opinion, based on news articles and the public
statements of climate scientists, is that other changes may well
result, an opinion based on accumulating evidence of phenomena like the
degradation of vast volumes of the air over China/SEAsia, melting of
glaciers, etc.

From the special on global warming I heard, it was the physicist who seem
to
be the ones who believed in the Global warming theory, and it was the
climatologist who were the most skeptical.

Meanwhile, I observe with interest the gop thinkers who assure us
that there's no reason at all for mankind to give up making millions of
jet flights per year, running hundreds of millions of vehicles and
engines, pumping irreplaceable water out of deep strata, or for that
matter any other profitable or potentially profitable activity.
Either we will or will not impair our own environment enough to
affect our behavior, the Earth's climate, and the welfare of our
descendents. We old people have a well-founded suspicion which way it
will go, and our descendents will know the answer.


I do not know if all of the skeptics are republicans, but if you say it
is,
I guess you must be right.

:^) Argue with your wife a lot, do you? But no, I didn't use the
word all. The gop 'thinkers' who are of interest to me are the ones
who post in this n.g.. Their uniformity of opinion catches my
attention, as does the national progression of rightard thought based
on such ideas as (1) rightard politicians have the legal right to treat
scientific debate as subset of religious doctrine, thus (2) rightard
politicians, having successfully subverted the American voting system
and 'won', now have the final word on scientific questions.

But my take on global warming is two fold. One,
"if" it was something the world believed would occur, then the "world"
does
not seem too concerned about the predictions, or they would be taking the
actions to prevent the event from happening.

The world you live in seems considerably more responsive to events
than the one I observe in the news.
Imho, it's pretty much always the Pompeii attitude: "hey, the
volcano ain't never ruint the town before, and besides the neighbors'd
steal my chickens if I left..."

I see no real evidence of that happening.

Well, can you give some urls for the info that formed that opinion?
Just a couple that caught your attention. Everyone's opinion starts
somewhere, I hope.

Don't have to do that. Let us look at the Kyoto Protocol. Is the world in
agreement on the Kyoto Protocol? Have they all implemented the goals of the
Kyoto Protocol? If tomorrow, scientist tell us there is a very large
asteroid with earth in its bullseye, would the world be talking about what
each country should do to prevent that object from hitting earth, or would
the whole world say, what should I do to prevent the event from happening
and actually start doing something to contribute to the effort to either
destroy the object, or deflect the object?

If everyone believed that global warming will occur, would they be talking
about what they should do, or would they actually be doing their part to
stop the event from happening?

Second, I cannot help but wonder why we are so concerned about
an event that "may happen", when we know of events that "will" happen,
that
would could result in really devastating effects on life on earth, and we
do
not seem too concerned about those events.

Good question. Obvious answer is, part of this debate is careful,
politically-motivated news focussing, what with (mostly powerless)
mankind having been taught to be interested more in The Big Questions
about Life and The Universe than with who actually runs their lives and
collects their taxes.
But I'm from a northerly part of the world (central NY, ~43rd
parallel), and have decades of personal memories of how that specific
microclimate operates. Or used to operate. So it's worrisome to see
droughts in a place surrounded by major lakes; light or no snow in mild
winters that now kill some plants and trees by see-sawing across the
freeze-thaw line instead of staying very cold and snow-covered;
glaciers melting in places that used to stay completely frozen for
months. etc.
A mountain of data collected by honest observers suggests that
something global is happening, and if nothing else, attention to this
question will suggest ways to compensate, if the trend continues, for
an event so large that even oil-funded politicians won't be able to
ignore it.
An old friend often reminds us to keep remember that changes on a
world scale do not equal turning up the thermostat in an insulated
house. That is, an orderly progression of temperatures everywhere in
the world will not take place for the convenience of news media and
politicians.
My own thought about GW, as it is fashionably called, is one often
quoted on the net: "No one is so unable to understand an idea as the
man whose livelihood depends on his not understanding it." So much of
mankind ride more or less comfortably on the skirts of the status quo.
Or, put another way:
"Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible...
If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it
saying "End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH," the paint
wouldn't even have time to dry." -Terry Pratchett, 'Thief of Time'
Mankind's current use of the earth -
let's-burn-anything-that-will-burn - may be an End-f-theWorld Switch.
It's possible that you and I will get to see if that's true, but if
not, our descendents certainly will, which is just one of the
frustrating things about not living long enough to see how things come
out.



.

Loading