Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 10, 9:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

No, it isn't. It's a very real possibility.

Since we discoursing reasonably, I have to agree that a sea level rise
of 20' (or any magnitude) is a possibility. A variety of plausible
phenomenon can cause this, including volcanic activity or asteroid
impact.

That's the problem with this problem. You could be right. I hope you
are, actually, because I doubt that enough will be done. I thinkn it
very unliely that you're right, but I'll concede that it's possible and
so would most scientists.

And here's the problem with the "cause" (and they admit this in their
own literature) -- No one will join the crusade if the net result is a
20 centimeter rise in sea level, or a 1 degree C rise in average
temperature.

They must stress the cataclysmic to get people's attention (see "the
Day After Tomorrow" or any local news before a snowstorm).

As far as conceding it's possible -- I concede I will have an engine
failure on every flight, and yet I plan to arrive at my destination at
a certain time. As pilots we plan for contingencies, yet proceed with
confidence based on expereince.

Caution is a good thing. The inherent problems in this approach are
unintended consequences.

Buy a Prius and save the world? Oops -- what about those huge
batteries?

Build lots of windmills and cut emissions? Oops -- just killed a few
hundred migrating raptors, native bats, and leveled a few thousand
acres of forest.

Replace all those paper bags with plastic? Oops.. now the landfills
are full.

While there is certainly interaction between human activity, the
atmosphere, and overall climate patterns, must we then conclude that
all human activity is thus harmful and that the only direction the
climate can change is towards damage?


the problem is, even if you are right, alternative energy sources will
have to be found this century to replace oil. It is going to run out.
When doesn;'t matter. A few decades or even centuries is the twinkling
of an eye. Even if we've only used 25% of the available oil on the
planet, to use up in a couple of centuries what it took nature a few
hundred million years to make is just stupid, pure and simple.
the other problem is, if I'm right and you ae wrong, it will be too
late. The I told you so's won't be something we can laugh at over a
beer.
In short, it has to be done either way. The only difference is when. IC
technology, much as I love it, is a bore. Nothing really new in over a
hundred years, unless you count crappy FADECs and the like. The Jet
engine is over a hundred years old now. Steam was only king for a bit
over a hundred years and in fact when steam was younger than that the
new brats of the future were already toddling around amusing people.(
the early IC cars of the 1880s and the early attempts at flight) We can
develop technologies that can carry us into the next century and we can
do it now.

I agree 100%. As I said long ago on an earlier topic, I really don't
care if my powerplant burns mouse turds. The energy source isn't what
we require -- the power is.

While the IC engine is old, it still is the most efficient means of
converting transportable stuff into thrust. Unfortunately there is
more worthless heat released than actually converted into what we
want. Perhaps that needs some tightening up.

But I need to make something clear. I'm no cigar-smoking
industrialist.

I live in one of the most industrially ravaged ares in the country
(Pittsburgh area). Not far from my house are rows of coke ovens long
dormant. The ground all around grows only a few weeds as the soil is
far too alkaline after years of coke cinders leaching. All around this
county are "brown fields" -- places too damaged by chemical runoff to
be used for anything but parking lots.

My son and I spent 8 days canoeing 220 miles down the West Branch and
main stem of the Susquehanna River. The West branch flows though what
is now pristine wilderness -- black bear, elk, and bald eagle live
all along the shores. But the water is gin clear due to high acid
levels from upstream mine drainage. No fish live in the upper reaches,
even though it passes through scenes pulled from "A River Runs through
It."

I've spent days and nights backpacking through the second and third
growth forests all up and down the Alleghenies. In the most stretch
spots you will find open, bare spots where a charcoal furnace once
stood. Now nothing grows.

But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and coyotes and
beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of thousands of
otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over the once
empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train rail yards.

The ability of nature to recover -- when supplemented by enlightened
protection -- is astounding.

While I don't reject reasoned debate on this topic, and am willing to
consider my impact and what I can do mitigate that impact, I will
always reject the modern Robespierre's, who accept only complete
fealty, and label all others "traitors to the cause."


Dan