On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:23 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed.
You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete
the total picture.


So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that
absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability".
Yet another flip-flop.

All we have been able to determine is that we are in a period of
global warming. Evidence has suggested that this planet has endured
many such cycles in its past. It is irresponsible to think that
mankind alone is responsible for the current phase of warming, and it
is equally irresponsible to suggest that if we were to magically stop
using fossil fuels today, that we could stop or reverse the trend. The
best we may be able to do is slow it down. But at what cost?


But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The
current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a
century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole
while climbing a mountain pass.

It's likely that the current warming "trend" has been going on for far
longer. We've only obtained in the last 50 or so years the technology
to track subtle climatic and weather changes. What occurred before
that is anyone's guess, and evidence obtained in soil and ice samples
only fits in a part of that puzzle, and can give us a general idea,
but not specifics.


I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are
scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more
than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave.

I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who
know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the
scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of
humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to
the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring
holes in the evidence.


What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses
into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from?
Not volcanos, that's for sure......

Yes, we have an effect, but to say that our burning of greenhouse
gasses is the sole reason why we're in a warming trend is
presumptuous.


Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to
believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that
the global temperature is rising,

No argument.


and that we are the cause.

That is where you are wrong. We are likely NOT the cause, we are
merely a contributor or accelerator. There is still much debate on
just how much effect we truly to have.


The only
disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on
our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or
"climate change".

You don't read much outside of those reports which support your
foregone conclusion do you?


I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to
Twisty previously.


Post them if you want.


I'll post one. It's an overview of the whole controversy and gives
both sides of the issue:

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/...rsial_Issue s


Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow
a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output.


Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes,
but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise.


But there are
still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for
instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that
would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output.


A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's
effects, and usually only for a cycle or two.

But a colder than normal winter over a period of years WILL effect the
thickness and spacing of tree rings irrespective of the sun's output.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.


Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?

I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.

Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.

Certainly.


, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses.

I already have pictures of both on my website. Next?


See below.....


So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it.

So you say. We have only your word for that.


I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU.

No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF)
graduated from EWU.


Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call
it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and
boat and call it your's, right?

Keep going, you're getting warmer......


Get a clue already..... my middle
initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have
graduated from EWU. Do you?

No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to
illustrate my point. But...........


If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave
Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name)
attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure?


How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your
boat? I don't.

Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is
that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify"
their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create
a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to
continue to ask.


I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.


Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.

My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I
(and many others) can access information on the internet for free
instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to
amass in book form?

Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".
It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.

Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going
through the minds in Bejing......

Dave
"Sandbagger"