Re: Breaking News: World is 10 deg chillier

From: Harvey Newstrom (
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 19:03:33 MST

At 5:33 PM -0500 1/25/01, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > Is this your position, that global warming is indeed occurring but
>> that it is not man-made?
>My position is that it is not man made. It is occuring, but not to the
>extent the green idiots are hyping and is a variably shifting phenomenon
>having to do with Malenkovich Cycles. The Ice Caps are not going
>anywhere, nobody is gonna get flooded, the sky isn't falling.

This fits with my own views, mostly. I haven't seen enough evidence
to attribute temperature changes to "Malenkovich Cycles," however.

>If you are
>really worried, start building breeder reactors. Funny how the Greens
>are not in favor of those either, in addition to their opposition to
>seeding plankton with iron. Why is it that the Greens are opposed to the
>very measures that would fix the problems they claim are occuring? Could
>it be they have an agenda? They do, in fact have one, which I suggest
>anyone with two cents look into. The Green Platform is published on the
>web in many locations at varying levels of detail.

(I can't speak for Greens, since I don't hold their views, but I
think I have it right.) They seem to have a consistent view of
leaving "Nature" in its "natural" state. I think they want to fight
pollution because it harms Nature. It does not surprise me that they
see breeder reactors as "unnatural." Nor does it surprise me that
they don't want to seed plankton beds with iron. These seem to be
consistent views for people who value the natural environment over
any man-made environment.

We do not need political agendas or conspiracy theories to explain
their actions. Even if I don't agree with them, I can see how their
beliefs lead them to their actions. They simply do not believe that
nuclear power or iron-seeding the oceans is "natural" or as safe as
we do. They probably fear technology, and are more afraid of
unforeseen consequences than technophiles do.

No offense, but I think you are projecting your own beliefs (that
breeder reactors and iron-seeding would solve the problem) onto them
and then trying to rationalize why they wouldn't follow the obvious
conclusion. Your answer is that they have a hidden agenda. I think
the simpler answer is that they simply don't agree that breeder
reactors and iron-seeding the oceans would work or be safe. If they
truly believed that these methods were untrustworthy, as either
unsafe or unproven, I think they would follow their current course of

Harvey Newstrom <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:25 MDT