> The OT and EE stuff however is generally interesting 
> enough in a geeky
> sort of way to keep subscribed to the list (perhaps 
> excepting global
> warming debates ;-P, debate how to fix it sure, but not if 
> it exists.
> (Lets assume it does and hope it doesn't))

I am not a GW denier, but I would be so labelled by all the 
GWicionados.

I am a GW don't knower.
AND I want to know
BECAUSE I think it's important that we know

The problem is, IF it does exist (ie anthropogenic effects 
are a major factor and are pushing us towards imminent 
disaster = AGW) then we need to be dealing with the subject 
really well and really seriously. And, we're not. What we 
are doing instead is giving the green-crazies an excuse to 
promote their green-craziness. And the 
your-money-is-mine-(or-will-be-any-time-now)-crazies yet 
another excuse to ... . There are many greens who are far 
from crazy, and some who are acceptably crazy (I may 
resemble that in fact) and there are many people making an 
honest capitalist buck. BUT the great AGW bandwagon is more 
about either carbon trading your way to riches or saving the 
planet through any excuse you can find, than about really 
knowing what is happening. And much of what is being done is 
all paper pushing and rubbish equivalencies and ... . When 
eg China could, should it wish, sell the US enough carbon 
credits to make the US carbon neutral, then, if you've seen 
the Chinese skies any time lately, something is rotten in 
the states of Denmark, Shenzen, Washington and more.

By "assuming it exists" and bowing to the great carbon 
credits trading scheme we are possibly destroying the world 
we should be trying to save. By all means take urgent 
action, but it should be the right urgent action. And what 
the right urgent action is isn't yet known. And we should be 
finding out as about THE major international task. Instead 
of pretending that what we are doing instead is the most 
effective thing we can do. While we find out we should be 
doing the best we can in the interim. And it's not what we 
are doing now. It matters not a whit to Gaia whether China 
is a developing nation and so therefore exempt from certain 
carbon restrictions - the smog that spreads in a near 
continuous sheet from Hong Kong to Urumqi* is mute evidence 
of the paucity of that position.

Meanwhile, we may quite possibly be Meaundering towards 
another mini ice-age, or maybe even the now 2000 years 
overdue next full 8000 year odd iceage. If the latter does 
in fact prove to be on its way you'll be seeing people 
nuking Methane Clathrates in the ocean deeps and spreading 
soot over the arctic tundra, possibly before the century is 
out. And carbon in any form will again be valuable - but as 
a product with net worth.

Here we see the red lines earnestly urging the sun to kick 
into gear and get sunspot cycle 24 going.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html

The last black dot was added a few days ago (monthly update) 
and the red prediction lines did not budge an iota. If it 
does, finally, start tracking up the red lines then all may 
be "well" - enough. If it keeps on going in the direction it 
seems to be at present then skating on the Thames may again 
be possible, as it was at the Maunder minimum in the "little 
ice age".

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The mechanisms are less than wholly transparent but there's 
reasonable evidence that they are there. It's not just solar 
insolation per se, which can be measured and therefore 
"accounted for" and dismissed, but the magnetic field which 
correlates with sunspot activity. Less field, more incoming 
cosmic rays. More cosmic rays some say / some don't - more 
clouds. More clouds ... .

AGW may be a welcome alternative :-)


        Russell




* Furthest city on earth from the sea. And in winter very 
very VERY cold. And you still get your clothes dirty from 
the air!








-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist