On Oct 25, 1:31 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:18 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:53 am, RHF wrote:
- You can choose to ignore what science says,
- but you cannot claim that scientific opinion
- says something other than what it does.
- Humans are causing the majority of recent warming.
- That is the state of current best scientific knowledge.
- This is not opinion. It is documented fact.
RA - DUH ! - Scientific 'Opinion(s)' is NOT
Indisputable Incontrivertable Scientific Fact [.]
Documenting a Group of Like 'Opinions'
Does Not Make These 'Opinions' Facts.
and thems is the facts ~ rhf
.

- Scientific opinion = what the available facts and evidence indicates
- after the application of REASON.

RA - Alas It Is Still 'Opinion' -and- Not A Hard Fact [.]

- What, in the absence of absolute proof,
- would you use to establish what's true?

RA - Actual Hard Facts -and- The Truth
-not- a Collection of 'Opinions'

- Reading tea leaves?
- Using divining rods?
- Praying to the Pink Sky Unicorn?

RA - There You Go Off-the-Deep-End
-Point-of-Fact- I never suggested any of those.

- Sorry, but when the majority of scientists make a statement based
- on evidence and reason, it's by far the most likely to be true.

RA - Selective Evidence and Skewed Reasoning
Does Not Make Foregone Conclusions True.

- Scientific "opinion" is the closest to fact.
- I don't know what you're using, but it's inferior.

RA - 'Close To' a "Fact" still is NOT A FACT [.]

That's Common Sense -and- The Answer To The Fear Mongering
of Global Warming is the Understanding that Climate Change does
Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change
in the Future of Mankind upon this Planet that We Call The Earth.

- -- ross-

RA - You Are Simply Entitled To Your 'Opinion'
-and- That's A Fact ~ RHF
.

I heard a climatologist on WGN some months ago. He was talking with
the host about global warming. And he said, if you look at the data, it
does, indeed make quite the dramatic point. And he quoted facts and
figures that made quite the case. Most of which were used in Gore's case.

But if you stepped back a frame, he went on, you started to see that
scientists today are looking at a snapshot, a highly cropped snapshot
without context.

NOAA figures show that we are NOT in an unprecedented period of
global warming. That the peak year so far, in recorded data is 1934.
Highest global temperature on record.

That geological data gathered through core samples have revealed that
it was far warmer in the 13th through 17 centuries than it is now. Or
will be even if current projections are accurate.

And he went on with other data.

And then he paused and explained that even if the data are accurate,
a far bigger indicator of global climatic trends agricultural. Which
crops grow where, and which don't. And the most easily observed, and
most accurately indicative is where wine is grown.

Wine vineyards only grow in specific conditions, one of which is
average temperature.

And wine vineyards have been slowly moving south for centuries.

At one time, England had a thriving wine economy. Wine grew as far
north as Scotland, and exports were highly prized worldwide. Many of the
French stocks were born of English roots.

Leif Ericson's expedition reported enormous wine vineyards growing in
north of Nova Scotia. A German in his party, named Tyrker, left the
encampment and wandered into this northern wine country for months. When
discovered by other members of the party, he was drunk. So vast was the
region of wine grapes, they call the place Vinland.

Today, there is little wine grown in Canada. Due to the unfavorable
cool temperatures.

The climatologist concluded, that if you look at the history of where
wine grows on this planet, you'd see a clear pattern of overall cooling.
Which is what you'd expect after the recession of the glaciers at the
end of an ice age (Quaternary) as processes spike global temperatures,
which trigger the buffer mechanisms that result in gradual reduction of
temperatures.

Overall, he said, a cyclical process. And a natural cyclical process
at that. But cyclical heating and cooling, in conjunction with natural
entropy, results in overall global cooling. Which is what we've seen
over the last 700 years.

As for what's happening right now? We've seen an overall increase in
the output of the sun. Temporary temperature spike. That will fade. More
importantly, studies recently conducted in Yellowstone and environs
revealed that the hunting to near extinction of wolves in the park did
more to damage the environment than burning it to the ground. By
removing large carnivores, large herbivore populations were allowed to
mushroom, resulting in a defoliation of large areas of the park. Aspen
trees disappeared almost in totality. Which had an astonishingly large
environmental and climatological impact. By reintroducing wolves into
the park 5 years ago, herbivore populations have abated, and foliage has
returned, including Aspen trees. Rainfall patterns have returned to
previous states. And while some wolves have to be taken as they get out
of the park and endanger surrounding human settlements, the wholesale
slaughter of wolves has NOT begun. And natural selection has continued
unabated. With highly positive results.

Which suggests that any man made impact on global climate change is
not by shift in the carbon footprint, but by the wholesale slaughter of
species without reason. Small takings are negligible. The hunt to
extinction...that's another matter.

Moderation in all things would then appear to be the key to survival.

Would be the key to maintaining a healthy environment.

Pre Columbian natives knew this for centuries before us. But this is
a problem created, realized and solved. Effective impact-zero.

But just look at the gradual southern migration of wine countries on
this planet. That can ONLY happen in conditions of global cooling.

This guy was dismissed by several callers as a heretic who deserved
to have his funding revoked.

Which is typical of religious zealots: You don't like the opposing
viewpoint-silence it.

The truth does not require, nor appreciate, such tactics. Only a
politically expedient truth needs the silence of the opposition.

The science is not settled. But the moral obligation is clear: Let
cooler heads prevail and resist kneejerk responses which will have long
term global consequences.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DPM - Some good valid Info and a nice read. ~ RHF