On Oct 13, 2:11 am, dxAce wrote:
Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:49 am, dxAce wrote:
Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:19 am, dxAce wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:07 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:

Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

RA,

"Climate Change" in a significant manner may in-fact be
'happening' at this Earth-Age -but- Mankind is 'want' to
have any real impact on it -except to- Adapt and Survive.

Yep, seems not long ago that the so-called-scientists were predicting global
cooling.

Now, we've a new bunch of kooks, led by a fellow who had to undergo a lot of
therapy because he lost an election. Al is mentally ill.

Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

Yep, it's you kooks!

If believing the majority of experts in the field makes one a lunatic,
wow, we've just landed in upside-down world.

Sorry Ross, it's your world that is upside-down, not mine.

Now please, get off that computer and reduce your carbon footprint. And turn off those
lights as well and just sit there and quake in fear!

Damn kooks.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. Isn't that cool?

But, I stand by the scientific consensus that there's a problem and
have trouble characterizing a pretty solid block of scientists as
"kooks" for saying there's a problem.

First, even *if* humans aren't causing the warming trend, the fact is
the Earth now has about 6.6 billion people on it means that even
fairly small disruptions in climate may result in massive starvation,
refugee crises, and destabilizing effects anywhere where the carrying
capacity of the land is marginal vs. population load. (And this isn't
just poor countries. Australia may well be one of the most seriously
affected.)

We may have it backwards. The issue may not be whether or not humans
*are* changing the climate, but rather whether humans *should* be
changing the climate. And if the current warming trends continue,
perhaps the answer is "yes".

Two proposed methods for counteracting a warming trend that seems to
be created by greenhouse gas concentration are being discussed.
(Probably others, but this is what I've read about):
1. Carbon sequestration. This is basically, sucking CO2 out of the
atmosphere (or capturing it where it's generated, at say a power
plant) and converting it into a solid form or pump it underground.

2. Reflectivity. One way to cope with increased solar energy being
trapped in the atmosphere is to reflect a percent or two of the
sunlight back into space. Reflective particles in space, or even over
large uninhabited areas, or the upper atmosphere. This could have
really neat DX potential.



These can be thought of as attempts to keep the climate where it is
now, even if CO2 emissions continue to increase.

There's *way* too much gloom-and-doom about global warming. But not
because it's not a problem. It's because we'll work out a solution.
Some will be conservation (which often saves money and doesn't impact
quality of life at all.) Some will be alternative energy sources. But
in the near-term, probably the bulk of it will be a tech-fix.

Artificial ionosphere with shiny particles, anyone?