Thinking of buying a V12 Turbo Diesel F100 Truck to tow the new motor glider, that should help!
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:aus-soaring- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Loxton >> Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2007 10:57 AM >> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Climate change. >> >> The argument on weather climate change is real or not is irrelevant. >> we have no way to know for sure, and really arguing about it is just >> wasting time we may not have. We DO have control over our actions and >> weather or not we choose to do something about it. At the end of the >> day there are 4 possible outcomes to this whole debate: >> >> 1) we act, it was not real. we waist time and money, hit a moderate >> recession, have some good new tech, but we survive in more or less our >> current form and live on. >> 2) we act, it WAS real, similar to 1 above, but we averted disaster >> 3) we dont act, it was not real - yippee for us, we got lucky >> (although since fossil fuels are finite in quantity, more likely to be >> as above ) >> 4) we dont act, it WAS real - say even the conservative estimates >> eventuate, billions of people die, billions more are short of food and >> water, world economies fall, sea levels rise, drouts, floods, mass >> extension, world wars, remnants of superpowers fighting over dwindling >> land and resources. etc. - life will go on, humans will probably >> survive, but it would be a very different world..... >> >> so since we cant know for sure weather climate change is real or not, >> not 100%, the only argument worth having is weather or not to act on >> the possibility. in the end it is an exercise in risk management. >> given the enormous consequence on not acting, and Climate change >> turning out to be real (4 above) then the ONLY sensible choice is to >> ACT!!!!!! >> >> the only thing we can know for sure is that over the next century >> there will be some very big changes in the world, and in the way we >> all live. It is up to all of us to make these transitions as smooth as >> possible. Understand the problems, look at the risks, for god sake >> open your eyes, pull your head out of the sand and make the RIGHT >> choice. >> >> NOW CAN WE GET BACK TO GLIDING :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ben >> >> (part of the generation who will see what will happen, and has to >> survive in it, please leave us a liveable world) >> >> >> On 04/12/2007, at 10:21 AM, Mark Newton wrote: >> >> > >> > On 04/12/2007, at 9:19 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote: >> > >> >> Did you actually read the paper? >> > >> > Absolutely yes. And you're not the first person to refer me >> > to it either. >> > >> >> There's a very short summary here by David Evans, who used to be a >> >> believer and even made his living at it >> >> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf >> > >> > That's nice. He even cites Monckton, which is lovingly self- >> > referential. >> > >> >> Just look at the data. >> > >> > Here's the thing, Mike: >> > >> > Generally speaking, the scientists who are looking at this stuff, >> > who are often quite a bit smarter than I am, are "just look[ing] >> > at the data." >> > >> > As absurd as it may sound, some of them are smarter than you too. >> > :-) >> > >> > While challenging each other to "just look at the data," they >> > can't agree. In any group of highly respected climate scientists, >> > half of them will be dead wrong, and history will plot out their >> > legacy in the same way that it records flogiston and ether. They're >> > all looking at different bits of the data, and they're all coming >> > up with frankly absurd computational models to predict climactic >> > behaviour. Until one of them can accurately predict what's going >> > to happen more than 5 years ahead, _none_ of them are worth >> > listening to. >> > >> > So here's my take: Acknowledging that I'm not smart enough to >> > be authoritative on this, I'm not drawing conclusions and am >> > keeping an open mind. That is, after all, what's required of >> > a skeptical enquirer, right? >> > >> > Another thing that's required of a skeptical enquirer is >> > to question sources, and that's what I've done with Monckton. >> > >> > If _you_ were a proper skeptic, you'd be doing the same, just >> > like I'm guessing you do with Mann's hockey stick and the IPCC, >> > and comparing sea level rise predictions with observed sea >> > levels. It strikes me that by only criticising the positions >> > you disagree with, you've probably formed some conclusions which >> > the science is not yet capable of supporting. >> > >> > Monckton's record paints him as someone who's unbalanced enough to >> > carry a taint even without considering the funding he receives >> > from the petrochemical industry. If the science supporting your >> > position is anywhere near as strong as you claim it is, you should >> > be able to find a better advocate than him. >> > >> > That is all. Carry on. >> > >> > - mark >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton >> > ----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 ----- >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Aus-soaring mailing list >> > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net >> > To check or change subscription details, visit: >> > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
