To your point, I fear that you have failed to read the large body of
SCIENTIFIC study that refutes the claim of human activity affecting the
climate system of the earth.
SCIENTIFIC study has demonstrated that the earth has undergone many warming
and cooling cycles during its millions of years of history. Unless you have
knowledge of an experimental study that a vast body of scientists are
unaware of proving the current warming cycle is the result of human
activity, I fear you view of the world falls under proposition 2 of your
More to the point, temperature records show the northern hemisphere was
warmer in the 1930's than it is today and the southern hemisphere has
changed little if any in the last 100 years.
I am certain the earth would be better off if we would reduce emissions of
all kinds, but as the population of the earth grows it's not likely to
The more this issue becomes a political issue, the less likely there will a
satisfactory solution. History has shown that politicians adopt short term
fixes in response to the loudest pressure. This type of fix invariable turn
out to be a disaster in the long run. Just watch as the latest political
fix to a natural resource problem, ethanol for petroleum plays out. farmers
all over the world, not being stupid, have jumped on the bandwagon and are
growing corn and other crops capable of being converted into ethanol on any
piece of unused or worn out land available. The fact that they have
increased the rate of destruction of jungle land in Brazil or are pouring
vast amounts of petroleum based fertilizer on infertile land in the US and
are using vast amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to farm this land is
All of this to produce a fuel that is more harmful to the atmosphere than is
gasoline. The production of NOX is increased with ethanol. NOX is more
harmful than CO2
Where's the ecology in that?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of Jim Brown
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 10:27 AM
> To: RFI Reflector
> Subject: [RFI] Global Warming and Ecology
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:13:47 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
> >There is no UNDISPUTED evidence that global warming is the result
> >of human activities.
> Those doing the disputing don't have science on their side. I see
> those doing the disputing as coming from one or more of the
> following places:
> May I remind those here of the scientific method -- study what has
> already been proven and understood, set up experiments to prove
> what is not yet known or proven. Most of us here have done that
> for circuit theory, electronics, and radio, but not many of us
> have done so in the discipline of the ecology of our planet.
> The fact that WE have not done so does not mean that others have
> not done so.
> 1) "I haven't done the science to prove it, nor have I studied the
> science that has been done, so it isn't real."
> 2) "It violates my political views of how the world should be
> 3) "Science is a matter of opinion."
> If you get around the world much (to places where you see the
> degradation of the environment), and if you read REAL newspapers,
> and if you listen to REAL broadcast news, it is clear beyond any
> reasonable doubt that massive damage has already been done to our
> planet. The well documented receding of the polar ice caps are
> only the most recent examples. You didn't hear about that? That's
> YOUR fault, not a guy named Gore.
> Jim Brown K9YC
> RFI mailing list
RFI mailing list