Erik: I have not provided any sources, deliberately so. We can send links all day long refuting each other, that's exactly the kind of debate I get tired of and will not participate in. If there was link I could send you that would change your mind I would but no matter what information I send you, you will not alter your views, you believe what you believe. So what's the point? I'm sorry you do not recall the 10 years of oil remaining claims of the early 70's, I do very clearly. It was taught to us in school as fact, so was impending famine. The movie Solent Green was based on beleifs of the time. When was the last time we made a movie about eating each other that became main stream, I'm not talking about Zombie Movies. We don't believe in world wide famine any longer, it's not part of popular culture. CO2, acids, particulates and all manner of emission were blamed for the impending deep freeze. They were all wrong, not about pollution, but about the big Freeze. That is perhaps the more important point. Good data, wrong conclusion. The conclusion is always where the politics kick-in. That's what I think we're repeating today. But despite that we did make positive changes because people could see dying trees, there was evidence people could agree on and we all forgot about the big freeze and we moved to protect our forests. Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or believer in Man-Made Global Warming one thing we can all agree on is that we need to clean things up, oil is dirty, coal is dirty, etc. and we would all be better off with cleaner fuels and cleaner energy, safer chemicals, etc. Wrapping the debate in very questionable conclusions changes the debate from what we can all agree on (pollution) to what we can't agree on (the need for radical social change). So I will politely refuse to engage in the Link sending which is pointless. Not that I haven't done research and continue to do so, I've done quite a bit and can quote long list of names and figures, but it does no good. I would suggest we focus on solutions we can agree on: Energy independence, clean energy, cheap energy and a healthy planet just to name a few. I know of no one that doesn't want those things. I'm sorry, I for one don't think it is no accident that we are so divided over this issue, polls show a nearly 50-50 split between skeptics and believers in this country, pretty much along political lines. Unfortunately today if I know your politics there are any number of things I know your opinion on. Yet there are any number of things both sides agree on that we can't even have a civil conversation about. Manipulation of public opinion? Maybe, division has long been a tool of control it has been known to happen, but we can choose not participate. So again, I will not engage in link sending, it will not change your opinion. I will ask that we all stop and consider the things we can agree on and focus on solutions. We all want a cleaner, greener planet without impoverishing nations, causing misery or destroying economies. How do we do that? Robert Taylor -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right? As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing? To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it? Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that. I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science? You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK. You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course. Erik