Bela: The only scientists that don't at least think global warming is LIKELY are oil industry puppets. As for the $2500 dollar deduction from income... I seriously doubt it. The evidence is mixed right there. Some estimate that the environmental precautions necessary would actually INCREASE productivity by creating new tech ventures and reducing the foreign trade deficit. In the long term, there's no question that being environmentally safe is economically beneficial. Right now, a Kw hour of solar PVC power is more expensive than a kw/h of coal. But that won't last forever. In the long term, it's possible to have solar pvc's draw power at as low as 1.8 cents (or so) per kw/h. That # isn't possible with fossil fuel. IMO, there *would* be some initial economic drawbacks to going green. But the long term benefits would outweigh this. The solar/hydrogen economy is the future . ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
It is quite "cute" when persons disagree with findings from scientists they call it a "theory". Well, yeah it is, along with "Relativity","Evolution", and many others most educated persons agree have a high correspondence with reality as we know it. If you are looking for absolute proof and universality, don't look to science, you won't find your answers there. As for me, I'll take serious the findings that cigarettes are linked to cancer and many other scientific findings, despite 30 some years of counter efforts by those with monitary incentives saying such findings reflect "Junk Science". If those persons were more disclosive of their true opinion they would clarify that the science was not done badly, but that they think "Science is Junk". As for me, I won't ignore and discount science just because the particlar findings are not conveinent or might impact my wallet. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 07, 2001).]
Damn fine post, Desert Scar! ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".
Actually you dumb ****, I developed these opinions about global warming when I was getting my Geology degree. Maybe I also worked on those opinions when I did work w/ NOAA. Or maybe I also got these opinions when I worked w/ NASA Space Grant. Or maybe I also got those opinions when I worked for Environmental Engineering at Kennecott Utah Copper. Or maybe I'm working on these opinions while I do the groundwork for a Masters in Paleoclimatology. Or maybe I just have these opinions b/c I'm a ****ing scientist. Whenever you ever get the urge to tell me to 'educate' myself on this subject, just stare at these little characters for a while: .|.. ..|. In the meantime let's boil all of this down to something that even you might be able to understand. I suggest you ask yourself "what would cause an increase in CO2 into the atmosphere?". If you're even slightly literate, I think you should know several examples in the system (now chopping down forests, we're going to have mark that one down as something that's bad, mkay). Next ask yourself what happens when you take a perfectly nice O<sub>3</sub> layer that keeps us all nice and alive, and start bombarding it w/ tons of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, I suspect you already know all of this... and you're just some character that's playing me... wheeeeeewwww, back to normal. Everything's OK. The conservative isn't really that stupid. *wheeeeeeww*.
Click here and then answer a question I have: Are all 19,200 of these scientists oil-industry puppets?
Good job, Achebe! I didn't know you were a scientist . ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
BrianKagy: That's the first time I've ever seen something like that. Which actually says wonders for its credibility, since global warming was a major issue in college debate this year, and nearly every shred of evidence was examined at some point. My coach (a Republican) and his research assistants didn't find htat credible enough to include in our "no global warming" briefs... so I have my suspicions from the start. However, I do wonder about the credentials of those involved. Furthermore, I'm curious about the "private donations." Who made these private donations? I *do* know that the literature on the topic is heavily on the side that global warming is taking place. I also know that most major studies commissioned on the subject have reached that conclusion, and that the evidence supports such a conclusion. I also know that so far, the ICC (might be a letter off in that acronym) has been the most in depth panel. More than 20,000 scientists, and 7 science nobel laureates signed a report that claimed that man-made warning was a reality. This was a study. This petition is simply that... there's no research to back it up. It doesn't sound too hard to find conservative thinkers among scientists. It is considerably more difficult to write a credible report, with backing evidence on the topic. I've read several thousand pages of information on the topic. I've debated the issue from both perspectives. I've never found a thorough study, not funded by the oil industry, that argued against the LIKLIEHOOD of man-induced global warming. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Sure Achebe, is that why the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is shrinking? http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases99/oct99/noaa99065.html Brian Kagy, that is an excellent link. People who support the Kyoto Accord are jumping right into an economic trap set by the poorer countries of our future world government- The United Nations. Here is the text for Liberals to lazy to open up the link- Global Warming Petition We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Bela: that was a horrible link, see why above. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
The Petition "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (emphasis added) What are some of the beneficial effects of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide? I'm honestly curious. [edit: Oh, they list all the benefits on the same site... I'm reading it now ... I'll post a summary] [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited June 07, 2001).]
No kidding? Perhaps you should try to seek out opposite opinions, instead of constantly repeating the party line. Hmmmm, your college debating team is better at scientific research than all the scientists listed? SHAME! LOL, you need to get out more! BTW, you have lost this debate AGAIN for attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. You think these scientists are willing to risk their reputations to make a political statement??? Accept this fact- Global Warming is a theory that is hotly debated in scientific circles, but is presented to the general public in a seriously biased fashion. Global Warming is a political sledgehammer that Democrats, environmentalists, and Liberals use to hammer anybody seeks real economic gain, or attempts to advance the interests of the United States. Universities are run by Liberals, and that is the source of your misinformation. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Bela: I find it amusing that you accuse me of ad hominems, when you use more. Does it bother you, being a hypocrite? You insult anyone who disagrees with you. I just insult you; have you noticed that I don't attack BrianKagy, even though I disagree with the vast majority of what he advocates? My debate team doesn't write the study. We simply FIND them and then use them in round. And as it's mandatory that you debate different rounds on different sides of the topic, you need the best evidence both ways. Problem is, arguing against global warming is almost impossible to win; you need to be debating a MUCH lesser team to have a chance on that argument. Either that, or just confuse the issue. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
The single benefit of increasing greenhouse gases listed on the petition is increased plant growth. They cite studies demonstrating that trees and plants grow faster with 700 ppm CO2 vs 400 ppm. The petition cites "many beneficial effects", but their own reasearch paper only include a single beneficial effect. I have a hard time believing that 19,000 scientists advocate an increase in greenhouse gas emission.
They claim to have "independently verified" 17,800 signatures, yet the petition form doesn't include a blank for a university or a phone number. How on earth are the "independently verifying" these signatures?!? It's impossible to call a university to confirm someone's credentials without listing a university. They can't even call up a person on the phone and talk to them in person. The only thing you could possibly verify is that the name and address match. Great work, BK.
Jimbo, read this: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm It's a looooong read... but you'll quickly find that these perfectly legitimate scientists (haven, that was for you ) all understand the science, and its implications, but they just are the naysayer model basher types( I didn't really read the hole thing, btw). Model bashers don't leave you w/ anything. They're annhilists. In human evolution, it might be hard to detect the differences between homoplasy and homologies, but you still have to do the work. I can yell at the weather man b/c of the issues w/ his craft (not having an infinite set of material data points in a huge ass liquid to draw conclusions from) but that still doesn't mean if a storm is off of the West coast that it's not going to rain somewhere. BTW, about Antartica: I read in some paper that b/c of tectonic effects, there's a localized increase in icewater melting (cold dense water absorbs gas and sinks to the bottom of the ocean). Unfortunately for you: a) this doesn't help you if you live in a coastal town such as Houston -and- b) It's not the point to begin w/ PSYCHE! The damn ozone layer isn't smaller... (it showed up 'smaller': 9.8 million square miles, or larger than the US in 1999) numerous holes come together at a later point in the year. But unless Honda's are doing better than I expected, the hole is still growing since I last read about it. ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?! [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 07, 2001).]
Yeah, Switzerland (who attempts to be fiercely independent from the EU), all the Western EU members, and vitually all other 1st world democracy's are poor. Virtually all Swiss citizens would be middle class or rich by US standards. You win a lot of credibity with this statement. The US produces far more greenhouse gases than any developing country (at least for now). It would hurt us in the wallet, at least a little but, no question. But plenty of things most people think have been worth while has hit our wallet also (eliminating slavery sure hurt the Souths ag economy, social security hurts our economy, creating national parks requires taxes of production, reducing lead and asbestos sure cost us money too). I know it is impossible to reason with the Beetle fellow, you just have to have fun with it. Finally, BK, who do you think carries more weight, a self-selected list of supportors, or the National Academy of Sciences. I go with the latter, and it certainly has never been characterized as "Liberal". [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 07, 2001).]
jamcracker, I actually just saw the form. Good point (that was for BK, since he loves it when I just discount his random internet sources, lol). I did randomly type in 5 of those names (I could keep at it if I didn't have to get back to work eventually) that claimed to be PhD's and coincidentally didn't find any page references from edus or anything. When I did the same thing for both academic and industry friends that I know w/ PhDs... *bam* they all had pages w/ their CVs, etc. strange. HAHAHAHA!!! BTW, I still think most of the 'legitimate' scientists that actually did sign the thing are just model bashers (or buffons, but that's a different topic). Old school scientists always take the Socratic method of saying "I admit that I know less than you admit that you know, but since I admit that I know less than you, I'm smarter". ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
So OISM just made the whole list up? And anyone who opposes global warming and signs this petition-- they're just doing it to play devil's advocate, or because they enjoy nitpicking and not because they honestly think the evidence of global warming borders on being circumstantial...? Pardon me if I don't think that's a particularly strong disavowal of the petition's merits. Have you guys considered the (albeitly remote) possibility that the petioners have a much stronger interest than you in verifying the identity of the signatories, and as such, have worked a lot harder to do so? jamcracker, after your little sabbatical, I sort of expected you to come back with a better attitude than the remark "Great work, BK" indicates. That's too bad but not entirely surprising. Beta, do you suppose it would be at all possible for you to just ease up? The left-leaning posters you find on this BBS are not your mortal enemy. They didn't spit on your mom or kick your dog. They just disagree with your political opinions. It's not personal unless you make it personal.
Regardless of interest, zeal, enthusiam, it appears impossible to verify the credentials of the signers of that petition. Only a name, address, and a credential is listed. Short of physically going to each address and demanding to see a degree, how could the web site have possibly verified those credentials? [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited June 07, 2001).]
