So what is their agenda exactly? Improving our waste? Reducing pollution? Such a terrible agenda... Why does it matter? Who cares if their science isn't 100% perfect and legitimate if they're doing it in an effort to make humanity's presence less harmful to the environment? Are you trying to use it as an excuse to continue increasing our carbon footprint? I just don't get why it really matters whether proponents of global warming are correct or not. Reducing emissions is a good thing.
I am well familiar with this topic, and I certainly will not be requiring access to the search functions of this board to determine what the scientific truth is. There is nothing that I posted that you can refute, or have attempted to refute. Having dealt with post like yours on many occasions on my internet journeys, I not surprised by that in the slightest. And if all you have to offer are the Al Gore/Barack Obama talking points on this topic, none of that is particularly scientific at all.
Well, if you're convinced that no new data and information can sway you, why should we bother. And yes, your points can and have been refuted here by very knowledgeable people. And (oooh scary), there are real scientists here who are comfortable discussing the data and the experimental techniques involved. I'm with Ottomaton though. it is so tiring and frustrating. I have called the task Sisyphean. Especially when you say you are completely incapable of changing your mind. What's interesting about that? Unlike you, I am completely open to being swayed by data. But I do not consider the same old threadbare strawmen you've set forth to be "new data." I'll look to ongoing experiments and measurements from the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific community. Not particularly their public conclusions or some of their more political statements: the data and analyses. Cheers.
Lets do this: First we will feed, clothe and house as many people on the planet as we can manage, then let's cut back a little on the 300 HP cars, the 5000 sq. ft. houses and maybe most of the people in Asia aren't getting 60" TV's; because this theory looks like it may hold some water. We might want to exercise a little prudence here.
blahh. I'm not going to feel one bit sorry for not being able to control mother nature. I love my 447HP Mustang. I wish I had a 5k sq ft home and a 60 inch plasma, but nonetheless, you start putting restrections on stuff like that for the sake of superficial problems......hello pandora's box.
I can surely be swayed by data fairly, honestly, and accurately presented. That is not what I said, and you have grossly misrepresented my statements. But I think you probably know that. Your assertion comes across to me as a remarkable intolerance of differing views, especially in light of the personal animosity contained in your post. The consensus of the people on this board is not determinative of any sort of truth on this issue. And just because someone calls themselves a scientist does not establish their pronouncements as necessarily scientific or correct. But let's not discuss this, as you suggested. I cannot help but be disappointed at the rude and hostile tone used by what appears to be quite a few posters on this board. There are a number of people around here that would do well to learn some basic manners.
Again, the question posed by me: why? Why continuously attempt to discredit an idea that has motivated people to care about the environment? Why berate a concept that has people thinking "green"? What does this gain you?
See now, some people would view you and your conservative "I got mine, the hell with everyone else" attitude as possibly selfish or even boorish; at best short sighted for the children you claim are sacred.
agreed, to an extent. I'm not boasting an "I got mine, to hell with everyone else" attitude. if it makes a difference and I can contribute, believe me, I will contribute. but I don't think there is a damn thing man can do to control the planet's natural cycles.
(sigh) Nothing could be further from the truth. I did not think I was distorting your statement, but I'll look at the original post you made. You said "There is nothing I posted that you can refute." Um, ... is that not the strongest statement of "I've made up my damned mind" that you can make? How does anyone know that anything they state cannot be refuted? I can tell you I weigh 171 lbs, but you could measure that after lunch, and I could be wrong. If the points you list (they are not new, as I'm sure you understand, as such a veteran of global warming debtes) have indeed been refuted here before, but you disdain the idea of looking up the past 12,000 threads on this topic, how does that make me intolerant? I love differing opinions, and it's the main reason I come to this BBS... but much like people who only use microwave ovens shouldn't feel super strongly about the exact preparations of gourmet meals, I think non-scientists should be very careful about impugning an entire professional community, and thinking they know better. Maybe I could redo the plumbing in your house better than a professional -- want to offer me a contract? (hint: I suggest you do not do this!) Perhaps you are an established climatologist and have published your ideas in peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise, you have to rely on the arguments of others. And the "10 year window" is but one classic red herring in looking at a noisy data set of hundreds of thousands of years. It's like claiming that the Rockets should have won the game because they had an excellent possession in the 3rd quarter that resulted in a dunk. "I mean, the experts claimed we would lose this game on the road to the Lakers in game 7, but hey, we got this dunk in the 3rd quarter!" So, yes, there is the one BBC article that was posted in the forum earlier, and there was a lively discussion. To be really nice to a new person, I will retype some things, and then you can have fun with it as you will. If you want to know my view, as a physicist who is not a climate scientist but has "dined regularly" with some very good ones... 1. Human activity, particularly an increase in CO2 and a few other choice byproducts of our activity, can definitely only have a positive impact on global average temperatures over time. The science linking CO2 to atmospheric warming (I'm talking about the actual physical chemistry of what we know happens when CO2 interacts with sunlight, for instance.) That's better understood than what happens when you turn on a lightbulb. 2. Yes, we can argue the extent to which human activity has influenced the warming observed since 1890 or so. We can absolutely argue that, and the system is so complex, you cannot have a definitive answer about extent. Anyone who says "zero effect" or "100% effect" is just not being scientific. Nobody can know that until we build a parallel earth and run an experiment with no industrial revolution but all other conditions being equal. As Stanford's S. Schneider says "we are loading the dice" towards a warming outcome. Schneider has worked for both Republican and Democratic whitehouses over the last 30 years, for what that's worth. Very solid scientist. 3. I absolutely find the ice core data, both the methodology and the data themselves, to be scientifically solid. I have read those attempting to attack the data, and their arguments do not hold water scientifically, in my view. Therefore, as a scientist, I look at the correlation between global mean temperatures and the rise in CO2, and it looks like the greatest coincidence in the history of the planet, OR it looks like humans are having some effect on the atmosphere. If you accept the ice core (and other similar) data sets, you end up with that choice. When you combine this with point #1 above, you start to think it is likely that humans are influencing the climate. 4. It is possible that in the large-scale cycle of the Earth's climate that we are actually due for a mini-ice-age. In that case, our activity could actually help us keep the globe warmer than it might otherwise be without our CO2, etc. If I'm arguing against the global warming alarmists, this would be my position of choice, even though it is speculative. As I understand it, data shows we are on the cusp of entering a new natural cooling phase (based on long term historical trends, and by that I mean trends that last millions of years, not hundreds.) All of this taken together has led me, about 13 different times on this BBS, to make the following analogy. The science linking heart attacks to cholesterol is less well established than the science correlating CO2 to an increase in atmospheric temperatures. Therefore: saying that there is no evidence that CO2 can influence global climate is like (actually, worse than) saying there is no evidence that cholesterol leads to heart attacks. You are in the position of saying "well, my grandpa was fat, ate eggs every morning, and lived until he was 95!" Or "doctors are making a correlation but that doesn't prove anything, especially for the future. Lots of things can lead to a heart attack! Should we change our diet just because of one possible cause of heart attacks?" Both of those statements are true, and you can hang your hat on them on the interwebz, but ... are you eating cheeseburgers as often as you used to? I'm not. I'm playing the odds and keeping my fingers crossed. Okay, for some reason, I gave an honest, relatively brief and stripped down version of my thoughts on global warming. Cheers to you.
Crash and burn baby! Yeah,I know it's coming too Just don't come at me with compassionate conservatism, just tell you politics like it is: F^6K All You F*## ERS! Yeeehaw!
his gimmick is weird, a lot of proclamations of superiority over his leftist enemies, then coupled with an inglorious retreat. I still think it's somebody who has been around here before though.
Actually, there are completely feasible models for fighting warming (if it gets really bad) that involve releasing tiny particles in the upper atmosphere (sort of like what you see with a significant volcanic erruption. I mean, super cheap plans, by the way. Just takes the will.
