Dave, I have not yet read the rest of your post. But smiled as soon as you mentioned your concern for nature.
Of course Jaro too is concerned enough with clean green energy that he produces his power cleanly at surely great initial outlay.. And if you are prosecuting a 1 legged intersexual midget, your best bet would be to use a 1 legged intersexual midget prosecutor. Ok, maybe I took that too far. But obviously if you are defending pollution no one is going to be doing that as a Texan oil field owner. So while I am not accusing you of making anything up. And I am not accusing you of being paid to share such views. There are people who do and are. And they would say very much what you say, and act very much like you act. It's not so much that I am convinced that you are paid by 'them', but maybe you should be? Of course you are supposing that I follow the money involved in carbon credits. And ignore the money trail of oil, which is I think the biggest money maker in the world. John On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > John, > > I also make every attempt to protect the Earth and its environment and > am an outdoors man. I own mountain lands and make every effort to keep > them in a natural wilderness state. The thought of cutting down the > hardwood trees does not cross my mind. > > The Earth is precious to me and I want very much to see it healthy just > as you. I also have a concern for our fellow people that must be included > within our plans. > > From experience I can state that the engineering projects that I have > been associated with were generally most successful when adequate energy > was spent ahead of time locating and solving difficult problems that were > not anticipated. You can be quite sure that the unknowns will bite you in > the rear if not found early. There is no substitute for knowledge or true > science in the case of global warming. And in this particular case time is > one of the important parameters in our favor. This is generally not the > case when profits are concerned. > > Do you honestly think that the next 20 years will be wasted if good > science is applied to the global warming problem? When I say good I mean > open, honest, evaluation of the facts and not what has been substituted for > it recently. How can we get at the truth when a young scientist becomes > blacklisted if he does not toe the line? Why should we believe much of the > data that has been presented by unnamed climatologists when they secretly > refuse and prevent the publishing of information that does not match their > agenda? Take a look at the ridiculous behavior exhibited by the folks in > charge of the Cloud experiment at CERN. The scientists were instructed not > to make any inferences of how their clearly important discovery would > impact the global warming discussions? Do you think they would have been > given those same orders had the results supported the case for man made > warming? It is enough to make one sick. > > No, the science is not settled at all and we all need to understand that > fact. Sure, a lot of the scientists suggest it is due to carbon dioxide, > but many scientists suggest that LENR is bunk as well. The whole issue > needs more study and that is what it most likely will receive if science > wins the debate. I am fairly well convinced that there is more politics > involved in the controversy than actual science fact. As they say, follow > the money. Who stands to benefit the most from the current carbon emission > plans? > > I tend to throw examples over the wall, so here comes one that is easy > to follow. How about if in 1950 I told you I wanted you to build me a hand > held radio that was the size of a shoe box and which offered a camera that > could remotely send pictures back to our location. Furthermore, this radio > had to scramble our communications so that no one could understand them. > Of course the batteries had to be included and it must run for at least 6 > hours before the batteries were discharged. I am willing to let the > frequency stability slide instead of asking for 1 ppm which is not > difficult today. > > You would throw up your hands in horror and inform me that I needed to > seek professional help because that was totally insane. Furthermore, you > would inform me that it would most likely never be possible. Your mind is > trapped within the state of current technology since at that time vacuum > tubes were the only game in town that anyone understood. Sure, transistors > had been discovered a few years prior, but they were extremely crude by > today's standards and incapable of operation beyond a few hundred kilohertz. > > Now a little more than 60 years has elapsed and a current engineer would > ask why I need such a large box? The task would be relatively simple with > today's technology and that is the moral to the story. It probably would > be impossible to use our current knowledge to make a serious dent in global > warming. The cost would leave billions of people without things that we > take for granted in our lives since that money would become unavailable to > finance humanitarian projects. > > That is the cost of action that is too fast and unplanned. Let the > science work as it should without the involvement of politics. Determine > if there really is a problem and then when the time is right make a move > toward solving the issues without panic. > > Do not worry, as long as we make it past the 21 st, all will be fine. > Optimism trumps pessimism every time. Careful planning beats panic in > just about every case. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 5:05 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > Is not screwing with nature more than we have to, not polluting > indiscriminately, not interfering with a natural system more than we must > inherently the safer option? > > If I were proposing some massive operation, some space shield or some > active solution you could have a point. > > But you are suggesting it is safer to continue polluting and disrupting > the environment because we don't know enough and we will know better in the > future. > > This does seem more like a contrived excuse to not rock the apple cart > than a genuine intelligent action. > > > John > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> John, you mention a tipping point of some sort as being possible. I tend >> to agree that it seems likely that some event triggered by the Earth's >> heating will cause another unexpected one to occur. We have seen evidence >> that the climate has undergone many rises and falls over eons. My thoughts >> are that this is the natural consequences of having a complex system with >> many periodic as well as asynchronous drivers. I am not convinced that the >> turn around can be boiled down to one tipper, but there most likely is a >> group of related effects involved. >> >> The one situation that has always been observed is that the climate is >> changing. If this is true, then we will be subjected to either a warming >> climate or cooling climate that would happen whether or not we are around. >> The recent static spell that has been alluded to for the last decade or so >> demonstrates that we do not understand the system very well since it is >> outside of the range of our models. We must not have too much faith in >> these constructs. They are only as good as our current understanding of >> the Earth and its climate system, which is improving daily. I have seen >> convincing evidence that cloud formation as a result of cosmic rays is one >> very key factor which is not even taken into account by the models. And, >> if you dig into it, you will see that the current models make wild >> assumptions with respect to positive feedback effects of the calculated >> carbon dioxide warming and water vapor. It is acknowledged that water >> vapor is the major heat trapper with carbon dioxide far behind. Only if >> you assume that carbon dioxide achieves star performance by forcing water >> vapor to do 8 or so times its relatively minor drive do you get the large >> warming expected by the models. (COP of 8 maybe?) >> >> You might ask yourself how is a tipping point possible when none of the >> models suggest such a thing. If one or more truly exist, then the models >> must be trash. How could they miss such a major event if they represent >> the climate to any reasonable degree? So, when I hear climatologist's >> allude to tipping points that may exist, I equate that statement to saying >> that our models are most likely seriously in error. >> >> The only sensible course of action is to sit back and enjoy the warm >> weather until it is determined that we are indeed the cause of dangerous >> global warming. And thank God every day that it is not getting colder >> instead since that is the other much worse option. Keep working on LENR >> and other sources of energy which will eventually replace most of the >> fossil fuel usage. >> >> You mentioned that it would not be wise to wait until the fire gets >> bigger before you attack it. Sometimes that is exactly the best plan of >> action. It is wise to make the call to the fire department before you go >> out to the barn with your bucket of water to fight a moderate sized fire. >> Chances are you will get burned by the flames that are already too large >> for your bucket. Once the well trained fighters arrive, the fire is >> quickly put out. These fire fighters are standing in for the future >> technologies that will come along much better equipped than we are today to >> attack global warming if that is actually required. >> >> Please do not consider me to be sinking my head in the sand hoping that >> the predator will pass. A well reasoned and proven approach is far >> superior to a mad emotional rush toward a problem. Panic hardly ever >> results in success and there is little reason to do so with the enormous >> time frame at our disposal. Perform the science first and then lets figure >> out the best solution. >> >> When I hear the expression "The Science Is Settled", it makes my blood >> boil. It has been stated many times before in our history and it is as >> wrong now as then. Why waste time following LENR when the science has been >> settled (according to most physicists) that it is not possible? >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 1:54 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global >> Warming .... >> >> ... >> My understanding is that if a tipping point exists and it well might, >> then the process of either melting the ice caps or paradoxically triggering >> an ice age might be unable to be stopped at least by any reasonable means. >> In fact inertia alone is enough to make a situation very hard to stop. >> >> This sound like very irresponsible logic. >> Compared to ignoring a fire because it isn't very big yet, or isn't quite >> at your place yet. >> >> but we do need to worry about our grandchildren. >>> >> >> Ok, good save. >> >> ..... >> > >
