Text 1575, 74 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 17:05:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2021.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <3tydnSPvxrGNdxzZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <UNIfg.43903$Lm5.31975@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:5hj382tj71ns55nm27i16d4e41ci8vv50i@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 04:51:04 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>>I was watching something on television a few weeks ago that suggested that
>>global warming might actually recreate the conditions that lead to the
>>mini ice age again.
>>
>>Is this view to be discounted out of hand because it doresn't support
>>the official view that the oceans will rise and swallow the coasts, etc?
>
> There is no "official" view. What there is is a scientific consensus
> that global warming is real, that it is caused by us, and that it will
> have significant consequences. The precise form of those consequences
> and the rate at which they will occur is not yet known, but it
> includes some scenarios in which local cooling occurs, e.g., a
> reversal of the Gulf Stream could cause Europe to enter another ice
> age.

Not long ago it was presented as "fact" that the oceans would rise  many 
feet (I forget how many) in the next 90 years... probably less.

I think part of the problem is that what is fact is often intermixed with 
speculation that is lumped together as fact.  If you challenge the 
speculation,
some treat it as challenging the whole premise.

To be clear, I can accept that GW has data to support its reality and that 
data also supports the contention that at *in part* it is caused by us.  Can 
you say it has been proven to be completely our fault? I don't think so, and 
yet if you re-read what you wrote it certainly comes across that way. 
That's fine...it doesn't discount the premise, but challenging the 
conclusion is fair.

When some people say warming and another say mini ice age, it's not unfair 
for some people to ask for more concrete data.

Ok, we don't know how much and we don't know how bad.  Can we all agree on 
that without stepping on anyone's beliefs?
We don't need to to know how bad it will be to ask ourselves "What can and 
what should we do?"

Some people choose to believe the worst case scenerio, others don't.  When 
one plans for disaster, you usually don't assume the best case, and you may 
or may not be able to afford planning for the worst case.  That's when more 
data is helpful.  One way or another it's reasonable to look at the existing 
evidence and take steps to minimize the impact wherever feasible.  There are 
limits of course; we aren't going to give up technology and live in grass 
huts.   Quite the contrary, we're going to look at technology to save us.

Carl

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher 
a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, 
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, 
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a newproblem, pitch manure, 
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects."

Lazarus Long (Robert Heinlein).
                                                                               
            
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)