Re: Global warming and your garden

In article <ompomelet-151B85.04204818052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Omelet <ompomelet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <muFXj.17$aq.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "aluckyguess" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> wrote:
> 
> > From what I read lately we should be more worried about global
cooling.
> 
> Global warming leads to Ice Ages.
> 
> Watch the movie "The Day After Tomorrow".
> 
> It's scientifically accurate.
> 
> Seriously.

In fact, the respected magazine Science has reviewed this Pentagon 
re****t and the alleged scientific sup****t for The Day After Tomorrow and 
concludes that "it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a 
widespread collapse" of the Gulf Stream, and 

"it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a 
new Ice Age".


In Nature, another highly-respected scientific journal, a researcher 
finds that halting the Gulf Stream would be impossible, arguing that 
"the only way to produce an ocean circulation without the Gulf Stream 
would be to turn off the wind system or stop the Earth's rotation, or 
both."

Now, although it is not going to kill us the day after tomorrow, global 
warming certainly is a reality. It is caused at least partly by 
mankind's use of fossil fuels. The effects will be predominantly adverse 
- although high-latitude nations might prosper in a warmer world, 
tropical countries will have to deal with more heat-days, altered 
precipitation and higher sea-levels. So what is wrong with using a piece 
of popular entertainment to campaign for action to save people from 
that? As the Nasa research oceanographer William Patzert says: "The 
science is bad, but perhaps it's an op****tunity to crank up the dialogue 
on our role in climate change."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/05/09/do0
903.xml&sSheet=/****tal/2004/05/09/ix****tal.html

It would be futile for me to try and refute the "nay-sayers" of "Global 
Warming", as is common in science and nature, there is 
contradictory evidence, some from erroneous measurements, some from 
oddities that can happen over a 500 million year of the geological 
record. Most of the quibbling comes from the use of models 
as predictors of future events. Models use hundreds of presumptions
(premises) and not everyone can agree on the same presumptions.

The other argument is that science isn't science unless you can do it in 
a lab and get reproducible results. Obviously modeling the spread of a 
contagious disease, the effectiveness of a nuclear war head design.
or the interaction of solar radiation variations and greenhouse gas
concentrations can't be done in a lab but they can be approximated
by computer models. The vast majority of the physical scientists
believe that "Global  Warming" is a fact but dither on putting
a time table to it. The warm water passage that is developing in 
the Arctic, the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica,
coupled with the dramatic decrease in size of the worlds glaciers
have many scientists on edge and they are talking of tipping points were 
the heating will be come irreversible leading to hellish repercussions
as imagined by Steven Hawking 
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-22-hawking-warming_x.htm
and others
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000 

Now you may say that this is an alarmist attitude to take, but if we act 
and "Global Warming" doesn't happen, then we look silly. 

If we don't act, and "Global Warming" is real, which again, most 
scientists believe is true, it could lead to another mass extinction,
including humanity.

Which bet would you rather lose?
-- 

Billy
Bush Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg&ref=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU&feature=related