I wish people wouldn’t get diverted by the likes of TJ. His position is not the major problem with respect to this issue, imo. TJ himself is just an extremist who has never let facts or reason influence his positions in the slightest, so you’re wasting your breath on him, and moderates who may have been misled by the likes of TJ are fairly easy to bring around when you present them with good information. The biggest problem, imo, is the people who are manipulating this issue for their own benefit from the other end of the spectrum, groups like Greenpeace, for example. http://cientifica.eu/blog/2009/05/geoengineering-more-political-and-moral-than-scientific/ The TJs of the world and groups like Greenpeace are in many ways two sides of the same coin. They’re both self-serving groups who routinely mislead and outright lie to try to manipulate the public into positions that serve them and not the public interest. They’re also both highly unscientific while claiming to be taking scientific positions. The biggest difference between them is that most people know that TJ is lying while many fewer people are aware that Greenpeace is lying to them just as badly. An increasing number of people are becoming aware that Greenpeace is lying and not looking out for the public interest, but many of these people don’t know where to turn after that. They see liars on both sides and they don’t see anyone who’s telling the truth. There are some, like David Keith, but at the moment they are few and far between. Here’s some more background on this issue and David Keith. <object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XkEys3PeseA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XkEys3PeseA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
I'm more inclined to side with TJ on this. Not so much cuz I think the anti-warming argument would be morecorrect in any way, but just to have a degree of doubt so facts get proven to me instead of marketed to me. Cuz I've read so many conflicting reports on climate change it sometims gets hard to buy into any side. There's the Little Ice Age which blanketed sheets of ice all over Europe starting in the 14th century. And I've read of a medieval warming Ice caps are melting. No, ice caps are increasing... Also, thanks environmentalists and greenies for putting overriding feelings of guilt into every bit of human action in existence.
You call me self serving and a liar, but fail to point out HOW my argument is self serving and you have certainly not pointed out any lies to the FACTS that I have put forth. Want to talk about self serving? How about the money Al Gore has made through his venture capital investments based on his environmental scare tactics? This man has led us down a very dangerous path using alarmism, when at the end of the day, his two goals are to create personal wealth and raise taxes (a perpetual liberal fantasy). Who here is willing to pay $4,000 per year to have global CO2 emissions only rise 29% over the next 20 years, instead of 30%? Anyone?
intellectual laziness at its finest I guess you can't argue points, so you'll just go with the "hey, everybody else thinks it's a problem, so you should just shut up and agree." sigh
Grizzled, many thanks for the chiding and the video. Some of us reply to the climatrolls b/c you obviously have some posters who wander into that inviting space of I-can-join-the-clever-doubters-club. I should simply look up the best of these threads, in terms of data and debunking the denialists, and have it on a sort of speed-dial. David Keith is pretty interesting; I'm surprised he didn't mention the "scrubbing" technology, but it's probably because of the relative expense versus changing our albedo. I do totally agree with him that the conversation should be started about what we want, as a globe, for the climate. I have no idea how you get, say, Russia (northern ports) to get on the same page with, say, Indonesia. Ugh. And nevermind the Canadians!
The conversation is about to get started B-Bob. It won't be one-sided this time, you can be assured of that, friend. GOOD DAY
*tentatively taking popcorn out of the pantry, fully prepared to return it if/when TJ backs down from his quasi-challenge*
let me save you all the suspense and surprise and let you know, it's usually me who starts these threads, only to be reprimanded by big city new york lawyers and birkenstock-wearin' left coast professors. i've been trying to join all sorts of clubs that have "clever" in the title, but they won't let me in.
I'm going to agree with T_J here, to a point. The article notes this: [rquoter]Hoenisch and colleagues investigated the role of the carbon cycle in climate change and concluded that CO2 was probably not responsible for lengthening the time between major ice ages to 100,000 years from 40,000, countering a supposition that massive ice sheets grew and receded because of gradually decreasing levels of carbon dioxide. [/rquoter] We've had plenty of ice ages and hot ages in the last 2.1 million years so if atmospheric CO2 levels haven't changed much that would indicate that atmospheric CO2 isn't necessarily a contributor to temperature. I still think the weight of the science is on man made global warming but the climate continues to show us that it is much more complex than we can fully understand.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hT0bvy2IzsQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hT0bvy2IzsQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
