From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:19:20 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <14idpbINN3mf@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
]In article <1992Jul21.205357.16551@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
]> ... the whole CFC theory is still just that - a theory.
]
]Evolution is just a theory.  That the moon isn't made of green cheese
]is just a theory.  I have news for you -- EVERYTHING in science is a
]theory.  Some theories are more strongly supported than others, though --
]the CFC theory sounds pretty solid to me.

It's not. It is plausible, but so are many other theories. It is far
from proven.

]> As for the greenhouse effect, there is to date NO scientific
]> evidence to support its existence.
]
]Temperatures have been going up steadily for the past few decades,
]which is what one would expect from an increase in global "greenhouse
]gasses".

Check a little more on the issue. During most of the rise in greenhouse
gasses, temperatures did NOT rise. Furthermore, the decrease in
temperatures in the seventies led to a global cooling scare. Furthermore,
the same models that do forecase global warming forecast a warming
that would be beneficial.... most of the temperature increase would
occur in the daily low temperatures in the winter in the northern
latitudes. Precipitation would increase.
Hey, so many folks are for change, how about global warming... it's a
change!  More seriously, the evidence for global warming is very poor.
That CO2 has been increasing is certainly true. That it will have some
effect is not unreasonable. That it will have a major effect is far
more debatable. That taking precipitate action (as proposed by the
Rio folks) would make any significant difference (say, doing something
now vs 5 years from now) is almost certainly not true.

]
]> ... science hasn't given us any reason to panic.
]
]No, but it's sure given us plenty of reasons to get to work fixing the
]messes we've created.

No, it's given us reason to study the effects of both anthropogenic
and other environmental issues. And, it has... the global warming scare
has proved a great funding boon to atmospheric scientists.

]Have you seen pictures of what's been happening to sheep and other
]animals in the extreme south hemisphere?  It's frightening.  Have you

Yes, indeed, blind sheep caused by parasitic infection is certainly
alarming. However, if you think it is due to ozone depletion, you need
to study the issue a lot more. The ozone hole increases the
radiation at those latitudes to about that which is NORMAL at the
equator. This is not causing blind sheep. Furthermore, it occurs
during the spring when the sun angle is low in the sky, which also
reduces UV.

]seen the estimates on the decrease of photoplankton in the southern
]oceans?  The ozone isn't all gone yet, but how long will it take?  Is
]there any doubt in your mind that without the ozone layer, we're in
]big trouble?

Ozone is not something that can be used up. It is continuously created.
The question is how fast it is destroyed.

]> hysteria has led others (like Al Gore) to rash judgments.
]
]What are some of these rash judgements?
]
]Say there is a 10% chance that the scientists are right (a very low
]estimate, I'd say), and ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are
]real and will have severe effects on our ecosystem.  If we act now, we
]may be able to stop it.  If we don't, we may kill off a large
]percentage of life on earth, including much of the human population.
]How much is it worth to you to try and avert this danger?  If the
]danger isn't there and we assume it is, we've spent a lot of money and
]all we have to show for it is a nicer environment, cleaner power, and
]different formulas for coolants and styrofoam cups.  If situation is
]reversed, we'll have destroyed the environment and killed off a lot of
]people, but saved some money.  Which choice would you make?

There is a much greater likelyhood that overpopulation is causing
ecological damage. Overpopulation is caused ( or greatly exacerbated)
by poverty. Greatly increased costs to reduce CO2 emissions will
decrease global wealth and increase global poverty. As a direct results,
millions will die (lots of people die as a result of every economic
downturn).

Furthermore, you talk as if all scientists agree that catastrophic
global warming is coming, and it is just a question of whether they are
right or not. In fact, there is a wide diversity of opinion, with the
more extreme estimates (7 deg C warming over 100 years) being given
up as wrong.  The odds of global warming having severe effects are
quite low. The odds of the ozone hole having severe effects are
even lower - and we have stopped production of CFC's anyway.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections