SBC Yahoo (atilla.the.hun@liberals.suck.net) wrote:
: Lets see, I have a PhD in fish (ichthyologist), so that makes me an expert 
: on physics and the climate.  More likely to know if my astronautus ocelautus 
: has a cold, though.  The next time I break a bone, I think I will go to my 
: dentist and ask him to fix it.  I'm sure he will know more than a Orthopedic 
: Specialist.  This is not to say just because one's field of study is in one 
: area they can not understand other areas of science, but they have to pursue 
: the knowledge, it does not come in osmosis forms.  Most do not, they simply 
: read some article and keep repeating it, never understanding it.

: And while we are on the subject of PhD's I have known a few that were a 
: disgrace to the profession, my favorite example is the Cold Fusion Guy at 
: the Univ of Utah.  What a Clown and fraud he was.  Well credentialed, 
: though, but an scientific and academic quack.

: The climate of the earth has been changing periodically for the entire 4.5 
: billion years or so that it has been in existence.  No rational intelligent 
: person could doubt that.  What is in question are the theories as to what is 
: the PRIMARY cause of these changes.  Yes some gasses do trap energy in the 
: atmosphere, a fact.
: What has caused the climate to change for the last 4.5 billion years and was 
: it not something different on many occasions?  I believe it was, at least 
: some of those occasions.

: Those left leaning Environmentalists are bigger alarmists than those radical 
: right wingers that I know well.  Always wanting to spread doom and gloom if 
: some of their pet projects are not corrected, like save the snails or 
: something.  However science is not a popularity contest, if enough people 
: believe something, it must be right.  Science demands proof, facts.  I saw a 
: episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit TV Program (great show on Showtime, 
: the Science Channel should have something like it), where they went to a 
: Environmental Rally between Berkeley and San Francisco Calif (ground zero 
: for left wingers),  circulated a petition to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide, and 
: got 4,500 people to sign a petition to ban water in just a couple of hours. 
: The same people that tell us we must listen to them because they know what 
: they are talking about and how we should live and behave.

: And what happened to the Ozone layer that was going away and we were all 
: going to be burnt to death?  It has fixed itself and will be completely 
: closed in a few years.  This would have probably happened whether or not we 
: discontinued using fluorocarbons.  (No one can say for certain, though) And 
: no one can doubt the effect of the chemical reaction they have on oxygen in 
: the atmosphere, but one can doubt those reactionaries screaming fire, fire, 
: every time they have a "cool" 'scientific" idea, and want to launch a 
: crusade to fix it.  Those old Red Necks used to have a saying, "if it ain't 
: broke, don't fix it."  And I say make certain that the diagnosis is correct, 
: before offering a cure.

:  I just want to know if it is going to rain on my golf game Saturday, I 
: wonder if the NOAA can tell me that?

So if GW is real, we can fix it? Or are we simply doomed anyway, so let's
pretend it doesn't exist and see what happens?

Eric

: "Jo Schaper" <nospam4jo5schaper@34socketdot.net> wrote in message 
: news:11v1mfnomga6l7b@corp.supernews.com...
: > SBC Yahoo wrote:
: >
: >> I get my info from scientists at the NOAA and Kook Boy (Thomas whatever) 
: >> gets his from Disneyland.  He has a theory, hmmm...., lets see, his 
: >> theory is probably worth a pint of Mickey's urine?  No, not even that.
: >>
: >> Fact, Not fiction
: >>
: >> NOAA:  "The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural 
: >> fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity, driven by the Atlantic Ocean 
: >> itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially 
: >> by global warming"
: >>
: >> And if you would like to dispute it in person, I can arrange that.  All I 
: >> would need is a person with a brain, and scientific knowledge, and on 
: >> both of those criteria, you do not qualify.
: >
: > Last time I looked, both global warming and humans were natural--i.e., not 
: > mystical, in violation of accepted theory, or laws of nature.
: >
: > One can argue that global warming is natural as well. Calling it names 
: > doesn't change the effects that people will have to cope with. While 
: > looking in an book on caves from 1964 (one author a Ph.D. 
: > ichthyologist, --I don't know the other's credentials, except that he is 
: > well-respected as pioneer cave scientist--) and came across the comment: 
: > "We have no idea what the long range effects of global warming will be on 
: > cave ecosystems--the animals' ability to adapt will be based upon the rate 
: > of climate change."
: >
: > Hmmmm. 1964. Global warming as an accepted given, discussed in a calm 
: > rational manner. How far have we really come on this topic in 40 years?