(Thanks, H. :)

Reader H. writes:

***************************************************************************

Re: Reader: ' I have been debating with climat....

Greetings and thank you Hobie and Reader J.

I suppose I fit somewhere in between reader J and the people labelled as climate skeptics.

I think it would be extremely useful if the defenders of the mainstream 'man made global warming argument' addressed the impacts of some significant and seemingly ignored factors.

For instance, please consider the following points as a starter:

1) The impact on atmospheric CO2 levels as a result of the continued clear-felling of millions of acres of virgin rainforest - arguably the greatest carbon sinks on the planet - so that corporations can profit from palm oil and other commercial crops. (Is destroying large parts of the lungs of our planet really inconsequential to the climate change debate?)

2) The existence of literally hundreds of patents that involve and describe the deliberate manipulation of weather or weather patterns through things like cloud seeding, stratospheric aerosol injection, and ionospheric heaters to name just three. (Is it logical to ignore the reality that there are people wanting to profit from deliberately altering our atmosphere and our weather? - see Patent US 2010/0072297 A1 - "Method for Controlling Hurricanes" and ask yourself why the world is experiencing more, and more damaging, hurricanes if the means exist to minimise their effect. There are those that will wonder if maybe the same process intensifies them!)

3) The USAF Air University report "Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather In 2025" that explores the strategic and military benefits of weather manipulation to those with the power to influence weather anywhere they choose. (I do not accept that these weather control mechanisms have been designed but not developed or used because cloud seeding was used to strategic effect during the Vietnam war.)

4) The reality of some very long term changes and perturbations to Earth's orbit around the sun which are incorporated in the hypotheses of Mulutin Milankovitch (The Milancovitch cycles). There is plenty of literature examining the validity of these changes going back over the paleo-geologic planetary past but very little mainstream discussion about the impacts of long term cycles on the current climate change debate.

I have yet to see cogent arguments distinguishing between man-made changes to our weather by design and man-made changes to our plant resulting from stupidity and a failure to care for our home planet as the source of our physical existence.

It is even more difficult to overlay those differing arguments over the climatic impacts of long-term planetary changes because of our human inability to think over longer time frames than our own lifespan.

Those who don't accept this comment should think about how well they know the last hundred or two hundred years of the history of their family, community, town, city or country. A simple examination of the origins of various religious writings will also show how hard it is to prove what has truly happened in our collective human history.

Sadly, there also seems to be little attempt to separate arguments about long term climatic variations - hundreds or thousands of years at a minimum - from the seasonal and cyclic changes in our weather.

There are even fewer discussions now about the impacts of things like the Gulf Stream, El Nino, and La Nina and I even wonder if children are taught about such things anymore. It may be that they are redundant as natural processes if there is the ability to control them.

Happy cogitating.

***************************************************************************