Text 16224, 116 rader
Skriven 2007-02-18 08:16:14 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 16218 av Mark (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: where the hell is my global warming?
================================================
From: "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com>

> Not in the mood for much commentary, but I'll note simply that no one
> understands much of anything, and until they proffer proof positive that
> their doomsday BS has merit

That's just the attitude I'm most worried about -- ignoring history -- the
proof is there and we *do* understand it.

As the for the Kyoto protocol, that's a sham and I don't support it any more
than you do.

--
Bob Comer


"Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45d7dafe$1@w3.nls.net...
> http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming.html
>
> Right after the 2006 Leyte mudslide killed nearly a thousand people it was
> obvious from the available aerial pictures that many of slopes which had
> collapsed had been stripped of their natural forest cover and converted to
> subsistence agriculture. None of this had to do with ethanol, of course.
> But it did have to do with the lack of job opportunities in the
> Philippines. The employer of last resort in a Third World country is
> always the land. When an unemployed man runs out of options, he borrows a
> shovel and a box of matches and goes out to engage in swidden farming,
> also known as kaingin. When the Kyoto protocols were first announced, with
> the intention of controlling the emissions of greenhouse gases, its
> implications may not have been fully understood by the Environmentalists
> who designed it. The Kyoto protocol, whatever its positive effects, would
> also have a negative effect in employment to the extent it dampened
> economic growth. Less growth. Fewer jobs. More kaingin. More matches and
> shovels in what is left of the forest. Leyte.
>
> While not an argument against Kyoto per se, it is a reminder that any
> policy is likely to have both positive and negative effects. The trick, as
> any policy analyst knows, is to be certain any new policy produces net
> benefits. That is, that the good points clearly outweigh the bad. This is
> especially true in environmental policy issues in which enormously complex
> systems --  the weather, the biosphere and humankind -- all interact in
> ways that nobody; and certainly not the Environmentalists, understand. In
> the case of ethanol, the fuel industry will inevitably compete with the
> food industry to use corn. The resulting price increases may not be
> permanent where farmers can increase their own corn production. They will
> plant more corn -- but there will be more cultivation. And in places where
> the market doesn't work or government distortions make it difficult for
> farmers to ramp up their production the prices may simply rise. That's not
> what anyone wanted. But that's the Law of Unintended Consequences.
>
> ====
>
> Not in the mood for much commentary, but I'll note simply that no one
> understands much of anything, and until they proffer proof positive that
> their doomsday BS has merit (which they'll *never* be able to do as it is
> the nature of nature that we're facing), I'll fight their penchant for
> spending billions, nay, trillions, on their own little pet projects to
> benefit their friends in high places and destroy us little people's place
> in the world here in the US while also decimating the poorest of the poor
> globally.
>
> The global warmists need to take a deep breath and find (or create is more
> like it) another little project to make themselves feel useful and to wax
> poetic about, and spend their own money on, whatever it is, instead of
> expecting all of us to bow down to their holier than thou platitudes and
> hand over our cash. <no thanks, they can shove it instead of shoveling it,
> as they're standing on the quicksand of their own fiction, not science>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:45d7c36f$1@w3.nls.net...
>>> A single volcanic eruption can lower average global temps by .2 to .4
>>> degrees within a year or less. We could probably find a way to have a
>>> significant cooling impact on the planet if we wanted. Because of that
>>> I'm
>>> not too concerned about warming.
>>
>> That's the same kind of thing I've been saying all along, but we have to
>> spend money on researching ways to do just that when the time comes. The
>> Mark's and Britts (and those like you underestimating the damage that
>> ocean level rises cause) of the world are totally ignoring everything
>> because it's either too expensive or not doable with current technology
>> is going to lay us wide open in the future when it may just be too late.
>> If the methane hydrate ice starts melting under the ocean, we better be
>> ready to do something or quite a few of us are going to die, and moving
>> to higher ground isn't the answer when you cannot grow food or have
>> enough oxygen anymore. It's true this is a doom and gloom prediction that
>> is not that likely, but it *has* happened before, and by high
>> concentrations of CO2. (Permian extinction 95% of *all* life destroyed)
>>
>>> And besides, if you look at the predictions, most global warming is
>>> going on in the areas where it's too fricken cold anyway (1deg change at
>>> the north pole but only .2 deg change at the equator) so it may end up
>>> being a good thing.
>>
>> That 1 degree up north means that people on coastal areas are being
>> effected more and more, not to mention storm/tidal strengthening.
>>
>> > I am concerned about bulldozing and concreting the planet and killing
>> > too
>>> much of it's oxygen production capabilities.
>>
>> I'm less worried about that than global warming, Ocean algae (diatoms
>> actually) don't like warm and that's the biggest oxygen producer on
>> earth.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)