Is that why you didn't respond whatsoever to the physicist who actually took the time to post a meaningful, lengthy and scientific response to you? Oh wait, you didn't...
MojoMan, I am engaging you because you seem, on the surface, to be a thoughtful conservative, which we could use more of in these parts. However, you are just begging to be treated like a troll if you dismiss the posters with a different viewpoint without even addressing the posts they took the time and effort to compose for you. You didn't want to use the Search function, which I understand. B-Bob has composed a fact-based narrative complete with information about the science behind climate change and if you ignore him, you will be treated like the ex-poster you have been compared to in this thread already (t_j, trader_jorge). He was famous for posting inflammatory and inaccurate information, then simply not posting in the thread again once his arguments had been debunked. If you would like to be treated as a thoughtful, intelligent conservative worthy of reasoned debate, I suggest you respond to B-Bob's post in a thoughtful, intelligent way.
If you want to outsource your thinking functions to a so-called "consensus" of a bunch of scientists and politically interested types, then that is your business. I choose not to do so. What is relevant in this discussion is the actual facts, and not the credentials of a certain group of people who are supposed to be "experts" on the topic, or at least some related topic. Scientists are frequently wrong about their theories and hypotheses, and they are constantly making new discoveries that causes old theories to be substantially modified or discarded altogether. Being aware of this makes thinking people cautious and a bit skeptical about dramatic pronouncements of a new "truth" discovered. And this especially applies when it comes attached to an economic agenda that is as expensive as the one connected to the AGW theories is. And of course, these are not anywhere close to all scientists. There are other scientists that present a different analysis. And as we have observed frequently throughout the history of science, just because a group of scientists is in the minority today, does not mean they are wrong, and it does not mean they will be in the minority tomorrow. I refer you back to my previous post. In it you will find straightforward observations that deserve to be intelligently and responsibly addressed before we spend trillions of dollars in support of a regulatory regime that offers no hope of substantially achieving any adjustment of the climate at all, and that is based on a premise that has not even answered the question of if it is desirable to do so, even if it were possible.
Bob's post was a cornucopia of different thoughts on different aspects of the global warming issue. I respect the ideas he shared in that post. But it was a mish-mash of all kinds of stuff, or a summarized memory dump on the topic, at least in my view. What is it you want me to respond to? The whole presentation that scientists have spoken and therefore the debate is over is rancid BS in my view. Nonsense. If you guys have an established pecking order on this board for this topic, for which Bob sits near the top, I choose not to defer to that pecking order. If it is possible to have respectfully conducted, intelligent discussions of popular topics here on this board, then think I would enjoy doing that. To the extent that the name calling, smack talking, arrogant condescension and personal attacks that I have seen so much of over the past few days is what passes as "debate and discussion" around here, I am just not making myself available for that sort of interaction.
When people start calling you a troll, keep this post in mind because this one will be the basis for those claims. You have chosen to completely disregard the post of a scientist who works with climatologists based on ... well ... nothing that I can see. You just told everyone that you don't want to talk about it anymore, which is not the way that a reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful person would act. The post that you seem to think refuted (preemptively) B-Bob's post was a picture of what Earth might have looked like 12,000 years ago along with a ten year blip in the data that probably just indicates a "time out" caused by Earth's natural cooling patterns. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p25s01-wogi.html?page=2 These blips happen pretty regularly (on a global time scale), but do not indicate a wider cooling trend. The trend has been up since the early 1900s, oddly enough since the Industrial Revolution began and we started consuming fossil fuels. So, apparently you have based your entire claim that global warming is a fraud on ten years of data without even considering the wider data sets that scientists look at when trying to predict climate change. Then, you dismissed B-Bob without even responding to him, which is downright rude when you are the one who has been asking for days for a civil debate on the issues. Personally, I support cap and trade because I see it as one of the best ways to start clamping down on oil use and as such, beginning to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and support of the regimes that supply us with that oil. For me, it has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the economy, but maybe I look at a bigger picture than you do.
Actually, the basis is his very first post, where he claimed that anybody who said bad things about wingnut Michelle Bachman did so because of their hatred for hawt christian women.
Why don't you try responding to each of his points rather than simply dismissing them without comment? Then bring something else to the table. If you have evidence, present it (it better be more than your ten year blip, though), if you have opinions, share them, if you have a contrary viewpoint, express it. Just don't ignore someone who took the time to thoughtfully present their point of view. No pecking order per se, but B-Bob is a scientist and as such, in matters of science, his word carries some weight. I have worked in IT for coming up on two decades, as such my word would carry some weight when it comes to computer related topics. I assume that you have a similar area of expertise in which your word would carry a similar amount of weight, but you haven't told us what you do, so I don't know what field that is. You are obviously not a scientist because if you were, you would have said so when challenged. In general, when it comes to matters of science, I take the word of scientists over politicians and in the global warming debate, it looks as though one side is stocked with scientists and the other is stocked with politicians and the executives for industries that stand to be harmed when we start getting serious about lowering emissions. B-Bob was extremely respectful, composed a reasoned post, and you ignored it altogether. There was no "name calling, smack talking, arrogant condescension and personal attacks" in evidence and still you chose to be rude and ignore him. Is that the kind of interaction a respectful, intelligent poster would engage in?
A note to interested parties. "None of the models" will perfectly explain *any* ten year period of substantial data sets. One thing someone learns in college science class (ideally) is that real-world measurements have something called noise. Heck, none of our models perfectly account for the exact orbital positions of the planets. There are minor perturbations, but that doesn't mean you toss out the field of orbital mechanics, or that you suddenly say the Earth doesn't go around the sun. If there is interest, I can post some more data sets and talk about noise. Clearly it's one of my favorite topics.
LMFAO. I think I get the picture. By the way, did I say "scientists have spoken and the debate is over?" No. I said here's how you think about the problem and the data and the phenomenon from a scientist's perspective (or one scientist's perspective.) I listed multiple areas of reasonable debate. My offer of re-plumbing your house still stands, by the way. Think about it. Don't listen to those people who advocate copper or PVC pipes. I use lithium, a totally different material that most plumbers won't tell you about because they are so political!
i hope you know i was kidding..right?? it's me after all. i've pretty much given up all serious posting in the D&D.....or at least trying to for Lent. what? it's not Lent?
Oh totally. It's just pretty funny to me, especially as I'm about to go lecture, nd I'm thinking there are probably 73 people who I think are more interested in physics than they possibly could be!
I'm actually a scientist myself, so fortunately, I don't need to outsource my thinking functions. You still have not answered the question of how you can tell the good science from the bad. If anything, your mention of the associated "economic agenda" just makes me think that you pick your science based on what will help your wallet the most.
I never claimed global warming was a fraud. But I did raise questions about the claims attributed to anthropomorphic global warming theories. Apparently you did not read the first few lines of my previous post. Here, let me post it one more time: You are misrepresenting what I said here.
