Re: OT:Thanksgiving

In article <HAQdj.3626$M24.1008@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mr. Miller,

Your response is exactly what I expected. You don't care to think about the
factual part of the discussion and resort instead to nitpicking, to
obfuscating about the meaning of words.

Not at all. You claimed that closing off Gibralter would necessarily have
gigantic effects on a global scale. You have failed to show that the effects
would be either gigantic or global.

I don't know what you would
consider "gigantic" or "global"

While "gigantic" is perhaps a relative term, the meaning of "global" is
clearly defined and widely understood. Widely understood, that is, except
by you, as you seem to think that "part of northern Europe" and "global" are
synonymous.

(since users of your style of argument are
careful to refrain from committing themselves to any definable stand which
could be rebutted) but an event which would have effects from Iceland east
to Mesopotamia,

Oh, so Mesopotamia is part of northern Europe now? Or are you changing your
claim again?

Either way, it doesn't change the facts that:
a) the range of effects you claim is *not* global
b) you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim. [Hint: get a
dictionary and compare the definitions of "assertion" and "evidence". You seem
to have the two confused.]

and from Iceland south to North Africa - qualifies as
gigantic so far as I'm concerned.

Previously, you said "England and northern Europe." Please make up your mind.

Also please note that "Iceland south to North Africa" still isn't global.

I haven't got the energy just now to
calculate just what percentage of the earth's surface that comes out to: but
I'll hazard 5%.

I'll accept that as a rough approximation. Will you accept that 5% of the
globe isn't anywhere close to all of it, or even most of it?

My mistake in this is trying to find ONE cause which would
be big enough to impress you: I should have stuck to the obvious: that while
any given human activity affects perhaps only a tiny portion of the global
environment, adding them all up affects most of the world.

No, your mistake in this was in making a claim for which you have no
supporting evidence, and attempting to compensate for your failure to
substantiate it by repeatedly changing the claim.

How do you feel about nuclear winter?

I fear that about as much as I fear global warming, the bogeyman, little
green men from Mars, the Loch Ness Monster, chupacabra, and other
equally mythical things.


Doug Miller <spambait@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aaPdj.59561$eY.26205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <gKEdj.9352$E01.1837@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

A couple of consequences ought to be obvious:

1) the circulation patterns of water in the Atlantic would be changed.
It's
possible that the Gulf Stream would be shifted north a bit.

Previously, you said "that will have >>gigantic<< effects on global
conditions." Now, you say "possible" in reference to one part of one
ocean.

This would
affect the climates of England and northern Europe. In any case there
would
be changes.

Previously, you said "that will have >>gigantic<< effects on global
conditions." Now, you say it would affect the climate in a very small part
of
the globe.

2) The Mediterranean, over a long period of time, would become shallower
due
to the excess of evaporation over input (from the Nile, the Black Sea and
other sources). It would become saltier and a large area of sea-bottom
would become dry. This in turn would change the flow of the lower
reaches
of all the rivers that empty into the Med.

Previously, you said "that will have >>gigantic<< effects on global
conditions." Now, you're talking about changes only in the Mediterranean
drainage basin.

I doubt that you'll find many discussions of this anywhere. You might
find
the reverse, because there was a time when the Med. was in fact not
connected to the Atlantic. Whatever: I offer it as an example of how
human
activities could change the climate in a global context.

You've offered *no* evidence that it would produce the ">>gigantic<<" and
"global" effects that you claimed.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
.

Quantcast