If we keep on texting, we'll lose those opposable thumbs. Big brains? Fat heads. Some food for thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html http://snipurl.com/3nolp [sciencepolicy_colorado_edu] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/DefectiveGlobalWarming.pdf http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html I think drastic measures will require more evidence. Terry On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Rick Monteverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robin - > > Well and concisely put. > > I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be > trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a > bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long > time. > > I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's > put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That > still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even > better, position. Right? > > - Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:35 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless > > In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: > Hi, > [snip] >>The argument is whether >>there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are >>incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent > shortcomings. > [snip] > I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, > however a few facts are obvious. > > 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. > 2) The temperature is rising. > 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation > (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). > 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution > which is better for our health. > 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. > 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large > profit. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >
