as i said, take them for what they're worth... which the first one is apparently useless. perhaps he made these figures up out of thin air. upon overcoming my laziness, i searched on the NOAA website to support the 3% claim, and came up empty handed. maybe my search parameters are off?.... but in this case we're both right because gore didn't say it. perhaps you could point this finger in your own direction. at what point of proof would you change your views? for the record, i think global warming is dumb. we only have factual readings for what, the last 100 years? thats a pretty small sample to base it on the past 10,000 years when we came out of our last ice age. but not only that, i welcome it, as it's too cold in the winter now anyway. i do think we need some serious regulation on the polluters themselves including txu and all the other big bad corporations. because, what use is warm weather if we can't breath clean air? and its rodrick_98
Well, when the data would indicate that such a maneuver would be justified. What a bastion of open-mindedness you are. I suppose that the ice core records dating back 730,000 yrs are just some sort of liberal conspiracy. Damn that liberally biased technology. Sigh. Not worth the effort, methinks. I'm surprised you don't think this idea of "hydrocarbons from incomplete combustion are carcinogenic" is just "dumb" since we don't have 8 billion years of research to prove it. Duly noted.
allow me to elaborate on my opinion. i think it's highly possible that we are having a drastic effect on the ecosystem. look out at the sky and see the haze of smog, only a blind man can't see that all our technology has had some sore of impact. however, to say that we have caused the earth's temperature to raise 1/2 a degree, thus melting the ice caps, and threatening to put NY city under 14 feet of water seems as skeptical, to me, as the source for that NOAA op/ed piece. I'd also like to address the retort by Georg Hoffman, posted by rimrocker. Georg didn't mention one thing about: Dr. Allegre is most concerned about the "greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." and to this what is there to be embarrassed about? i have yet to claim having any scholarly knowledge on this subject. to say it's an embarrassment would be like scolding a child for falling off a bicycle. i am waiting for solid proof, more than just a bunch of computer figures...
The accuracy of GW models are highly contentious. You might be interested in reading the transcript for Evening with Michael Crichton the Independent Institute held two years ago. There are torrents of the video if you look for it. Crichton is one of the more vocal GW skeptics.
According to ice core data's though we are seeing some of the fastest rise in greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere. We know for a fact that greenhouse gases cause heat to be retained. OTOH the earth's climate is an incredibly complex system so it can't be accurately modelled. That said how willing are you then to gamble with the Earth's atmosphere? As I said in another thread imagine the possibilities of global warming happening like a roullette wheel. Now if we take opinions of the scientific community most say that global warming is happening and its not going to be good. Now lets say the most alarmist is 00 and 01 to virtually nothing happening at 35 and 36 on the wheel, everything else is gradations of problems. Now would you be willing to put all of your money on two numbers 35 and 36 or would you start spreading your money around to cover your risk? I totally agree Global Warming is far from fully understood that said there is alot of evidence indicating something might be bad so why not do something about it. Especially when doing something has a lot of side benefits like saving energy and cleaning up the environment. The problem is by the time you have solid proof it might be too late to do anything about it.
This is the biggest problem about he global warming discussion. We cannot show proof other then computer figures. The only way to prove global warming is waiting for the polar caps to melt, and animals getting extinct. even then people who want to be skeptical can be skeptical and say: we don't know if this wouldn't still have happened if we decreased greenhouse gas output. We cannot have a second wolrd and compare what happens with and without so much greenhouse gas output. That is just impossible, so we cannot ever have "hard" evidence. I for one am not waiting for this "hard" evidence. because if we continue the way we are doing and this global warming is happening, we will regret it.
i agree with this 100%. it is why i like to call myself a conservative, not for political reasons, but because the few years i spent in california as a kid, their recycle/reduce/reuse ads have stuck in my head. as far as it being too late if we wait for proof, you're probably right, which is why i support regulations on these businesses, not to mention biodiesel (which has more benefits than just clean burning), and mass transit systems. having said that, there are many such as gore that are doing a lot of talking and not much to show for it.
he'll be missed, but i thought this was appropriate... specifically 2:40 in -- NSFW <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhw8DFSGzvg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhw8DFSGzvg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
^ Pretty funny and R.I.P. I'm happy to say as a CAL grad I took courses at the Fidel Castro building in Why America Sux..
