I do tend to agree with your conclusions in general but with the following
caveats:

1) It's all well and good to exterpolate data from volcanic activity but
for the fact that our actual data isn't really complete enough to use
comprehensive data sets for sampling.  Why? Because we haven't really been
around long enough to gather complete data.

2) We can (and do) have historical epidemological records for humans but we
don't have enough geological data, as Kyle has pointed out. Our conclusions
are only as valid as the programs, analyses performed and the data itself.

Kat

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Peter Hunsberger [log in to unmask]
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:15:40 -0500
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a clarification for everyone, but especially for peter. i
meant no offense


No problem, due to the randomness of the mail serves involved I'm actually
seeing this reply before your other one has shown up...

In any case, I shouldn't have really said "all the randomness" but rather
"enough of the relevant randomness that nature can throw at the climate
issue".  The fact is that we shouldn't be at the point where we're hoping
that some random series of volcano eruptions will somehow dig mankind out of
the global warming hole.  Even if they were to happen it wouldn't be enough
change what is happening fast enough that mankind would not need to alter
it's current behavior.

On 11/6/07, ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> when i made the remark about arrogance, i was not
> reffering to you personally peter, i was refering to
> mankind and science in general.
>
> history is full of instances where we thought we had
> all the answers and had something well in hand only to
> have mother nature come around and kick our ideas into
> the dustbins of history.
>
> that i one one the thinks that concerns me about
> genetic engineering. it is doing lots og good, but, i
> am concerned that when we least expect it we are going
> to get something we never intended to get.
>
> anyway if i offended, i did not intend to do so.
> --- ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > i'd say that the statment that we understand the
> > contribution of all the randomness of nature is
> > "simply not true" and further would call it very
> > arogant to think it even is close to being true.
> >
> > --- Peter Hunsberger <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No, thats simply not true.  We do understand the
> > > contribution of the all the
> > > randomness of nature.  Mankind has simply pushed
>


-- 
Peter Hunsberger

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy