| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2009 02:54:20 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by citymars:
From the New York Times: In one scene, "The movie retells the appalling story of Philip Cooney, a lobbyist for the oil industry hired by the White House to head its Council on Environmental Quality, who edited and softened alarming scientific reports on climate change to make them appear ambiguous. Two days after the Times published an article about his alterations, he resigned ("to spend more time with his family") and was quickly hired by Exxon Mobil. |
He's a pal of Dick Cheney, no doubt?
I'm assuming there aren't many people who dissagree with the fact that there IS a global warming trend...correct? (with the exception of a few).
The main question is whether we (humans) are responsible or not and there's no way of actually knowing or pinning the blame on ourselves with certainty.
Still it would be far smarter to assume we are part of the problem and go to whatever lengths possible to help reverse the trend if we are indeed responsible. Doesn't that make sense? |
It makes a great deal of sense.
I don't think there are many taking an "official" (i.e. from a position of ostensible authority) stance denying the existence of climate change; the new denialist strategy seems to be in the "it's all natural" vein. But I do think that those who are working to actively sow seeds of doubt are perfectly happy that many laypeople think the whole thing is a crock ("it's cold here today!").
Joe Romm at Climate Progress says this:
"First, many delayers are clever enough that they donĂ¢€™t issue outright denials that 1) the climate is changing and 2) that humans play no role. They typically argue that humans play only a limited role and warming this century will be modest at best, and perhaps even have some positive benefits. That view is in direct contradiction with our current scientific understanding, but it falls short of the kind of outright denial that was common in the 1990s (there are some classic deniers still around, like Bill Gray, but they are fairly marginalized)." |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 03:01:37 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm assuming there aren't many people who dissagree with the fact that there IS a global warming trend...correct? (with the exception of a few).
The main question is whether we (humans) are responsible or not and there's no way of actually knowing or pinning the blame on ourselves with certainty.
Still it would be far smarter to assume we are part of the problem and go to whatever lengths possible to help reverse the trend if we are indeed responsible. Doesn't that make sense? |
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."
-- from Wikipedia.
How much certainty does one need? And yeah, it makes sense to accept we *are* part of the problem and to act accordingly. JMart said it very well on 12/20/2008 -- "Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance." |
ROFLMAO!!!!
Wikipedia without a reference is not a "reliable" source -- anyone from anywhere can post anything about anything.
There is STILL no evidence that man made activities are the cause of significant climate change (warm or cold). There is evidence to support the cyclical nature of weather for weather's sake.
Egads... we have enough REAL crises to worry about to start fabricating these. |
Ok, the IPCC:
There is a longer and more closely scrutinised temperature record and new model estimates of variability. The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Houghton et al, 2001 (Summary for Policy Makers) |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 03:35:30 PM · #403 |
I think the key is what approach to climate change is the most cost effective.
I suggest reading the book 'Cool It' by Bjorn Lomborg
He goes into the cost of various solutions and what effect they will have on climate. A cost/benefit analysis per se. |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 03:39:02 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by citymars:
JMart said it very well on 12/20/2008 -- "Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance." |
Changing our energy consumption...
What exactly does that mean? Is there a formula that one can plug into and get an "acceptable" rating? Is there a square footage minimum or maximum on a persons dwelling that meets a standard, whereby all who are above it are violators and all below it are helping? What about those yard tractors versus a manual push mower or scythe? What those who ride bicycles or hike or canoe? Can they offset a choice in home size or vehicle mpg?
It is one thing to state all should conserve energy, but that is not really what is meant. What is meant is that some want to dictate to others, what is acceptable, without taking into consideration the total carbon foot print of the one being dictated to. Is owning recreational vehicles like campers, or motorhomes, or dirt bikes, or motor boats (all that consume fossil fuel and pollute without any community benefit) - a forbidden past time. If not, then why not. If so, then why?
What is a person's TOTAL carbon footprint and is there a formula I can plug into to prove that a person is responsible? Driving a SUV or owning a larger home or having a vacation motorhome or going fishing with your grandchildren in a motorboat, is not necessarily irresponsible. It might be - but not necessarily - if one counters one choice with other choices. |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 03:48:02 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I think the key is what approach to climate change is the most cost effective.
I suggest reading the book 'Cool It' by Bjorn Lomborg
He goes into the cost of various solutions and what effect they will have on climate. A cost/benefit analysis per se. |
Lomborg does a very one-sided analysis that ignores a great deal of pertinent literature, particularly in his claims that climate change will lead to better health overall - a claim that flies in the face of the work of the WHO and similar scientific organizations.
The IPCC, the International Energy Agency, and the McKinsey Global Insitute put the cost of stabilizing CO2 450 ppb at near zero. The MGI estimated the costs at around 0.6 - 1.4% of GDP by 2030. |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 04:15:53 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What is a person's TOTAL carbon footprint and is there a formula I can plug into to prove that a person is responsible? Driving a SUV or owning a larger home or having a vacation motorhome or going fishing with your grandchildren in a motorboat, is not necessarily irresponsible. It might be - but not necessarily - if one counters one choice with other choices. |
Ah, so a triple whopper for lunch every day is not necessarily bad if you counter it with salads at breakfast and dinner. A pack of cigarettes on Saturdays is not necessarily bad if you counter it with healthy living the rest of the week. Robbing banks once a month is not necessarily bad if you do charity work the rest of the time. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. As with the other cases, responsibility means trying to reduce detrimental impacts ALL the time, not just scoring enough credits to excuse being a pig the rest of the time. |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 04:17:27 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
[ROFLMAO!!!!
Wikipedia without a reference is not a "reliable" source -- anyone from anywhere can post anything about anything.
There is STILL no evidence that man made activities are the cause of significant climate change (warm or cold). There is evidence to support the cyclical nature of weather for weather's sake.
Egads... we have enough REAL crises to worry about to start fabricating these. |
I knew the more boneheaded among us would lock onto the word "Wikipedia" and ignore the irrefutable facts -- and sources -- listed there. I repeat, this time pared down:
"... The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion." |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 04:54:59 PM · #408 |
| How in the world has this thread not gone to Rant?!? |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 07:14:11 PM · #409 |
I still think all this "climate change" (wasn't it global warming before?) is a natural event that happens. Were the billions of dinosuars blaming themselves too? I am sure they were shattin out enough methane too effect climate??????
Anyway, I do things that are considered GREEN, but not for that reason, but because it is cheaper. I have a F150 4x4 truck, but I ride my motorcycle (75mpg) as much as possible, because it is cheaper. I have a 1500sqft, 3 bedroom house, but I want something smaller (about 450-700sqft) that is self sufficient (solar elect, heat, well insulated-straw bale house), because it is cheaper. I hike and backpack. I have a fairly small "carbon footprint" already, but not on purpose. I live in my means, which means CHEAPER!
|
|
|
|
02/11/2009 07:34:20 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
I still think all this "climate change" (wasn't it global warming before?) is a natural event that happens. Were the billions of dinosuars blaming themselves too? I am sure they were shattin out enough methane too effect climate?????? |
I'm curious - why do you believe this? Is it just a hunch? Or do you have specific reasons? Remember that there are many things science has shown to be true that may be non-intuitive, particularly on scales so dramatically different from the one we live in.
The reason we use the term 'climate change' is that while the changes are expected to include a rise in global mean temperatures (1.4-5.8 degrees C, depending on the model and emissions scenario) that in and of itself does not capture the complexities of the changes.
Methane -
Total natural emissions of Methane are on the order of 270 Tg/yr, total anthropogenic contribution is around 330 Tg/yr (UN 2001). Of that 115 Tg/yr comes from ruminants. So even if dinosaurs put out as much methane as cows, that still leaves 215 Tg/yr (1/2 a billion pounds) of excess methane that humans produce.
If you want to argue that there were lots of buffalo, remember that the buffalo herd topped out around 60 million, whereas the world cattle herd is around 1.3 billion; that is, one cow for every 4 people on the planet. |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 08:34:01 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I think the key is what approach to climate change is the most cost effective.
I suggest reading the book 'Cool It' by Bjorn Lomborg
He goes into the cost of various solutions and what effect they will have on climate. A cost/benefit analysis per se. |
Lomborg does a very one-sided analysis that ignores a great deal of pertinent literature, particularly in his claims that climate change will lead to better health overall - a claim that flies in the face of the work of the WHO and similar scientific organizations.
The IPCC, the International Energy Agency, and the McKinsey Global Insitute put the cost of stabilizing CO2 450 ppb at near zero. The MGI estimated the costs at around 0.6 - 1.4% of GDP by 2030. |
What's the benefit in slowing the temperature increase for that cost? Will it take 5 days longer for the temperature rise to be at a certain point? I'm not saying do nothing. There are things we all can do to be less wasteful. That's a start.
Also, climate change in some areas would be beneficial. Longer growing season for one. It's definitely not beneficial in all areas and Lomborg acknowledges that. He covers both ends of the spectrum.
The key thing I'm getting from his writings is that if the money proposed to be spent to reduce carbon emissions were spent on alternatives that don't produce carbon emissions, you are benefiting more in the long run for a much lower cost. As we convert to these alternatives aren't we decreasing our carbon emissions as a result? |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 10:05:22 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
I still think all this "climate change" (wasn't it global warming before?) is a natural event that happens. Were the billions of dinosuars blaming themselves too? I am sure they were shattin out enough methane too effect climate?????? |
I'm curious - why do you believe this? Is it just a hunch? Or do you have specific reasons? |
Remember "truthiness?" Our collective "gut" trumps science... we believe things as if truth were a matter of opinion or personal taste. We believe that educated people are slick. We ignore expertise and believe instead that global warming is a liberal myth. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 06:51:10 AM · #413 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
What is a person's TOTAL carbon footprint and is there a formula I can plug into to prove that a person is responsible? Driving a SUV or owning a larger home or having a vacation motorhome or going fishing with your grandchildren in a motorboat, is not necessarily irresponsible. It might be - but not necessarily - if one counters one choice with other choices. |
Ah, so a triple whopper for lunch every day is not necessarily bad if you counter it with salads at breakfast and dinner. A pack of cigarettes on Saturdays is not necessarily bad if you counter it with healthy living the rest of the week. Robbing banks once a month is not necessarily bad if you do charity work the rest of the time. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. As with the other cases, responsibility means trying to reduce detrimental impacts ALL the time, not just scoring enough credits to excuse being a pig the rest of the time. |
If it is as you write, then ANYthing less than a full frontal assault on reducing carbon emmissions is irresponsible. Thus we need to outlaw ALL unnecessary use of gas powered engines (including lawn mowers, ATV, motorboats, collector cars, any sport that uses gasoline like racing). We should mandate that people live in close proximity to where they work to eliminate unnecessary drive time and fuel consumption. Highrise appartments with medical facilities and grocery stores on premises with specified square feet allowances should be required for all citizens.
Here is an example;
Lets say you live in a 2000 sq ft home with a family of 4 and drive 40 miles to work (the range for the new Volt). I live in a 900 sq ft home and drive 1.5 miles to work and have a family of 2. Who has the larger carbon footprint? Who uses the most water, consumes the most fuel, has the higher heating bill? I hike and canoe while you perhaps have a pleasure boat or antique car or enjoy drag racing. Who has the larger carbon footprint?
Unless you outlaw or mandate each of these activities as either permissable or impermissable, one cannot possibly critique anothers carbon footprint unless they have ALL the details. It is very possible that your carbon footprint is LARGER than the person's whom you are criticising. Which is my point, unless you are practicing what you preach, then perhaps you should start practicing it before you start preaching it.
ETA: if you would like to provide ALL the particular details on your homes square footage, size of your yard, annual energy costs including water usage, number of vehicles and brands, all recreational activities including vacation destinations and type of travel, size of family, age of family members, distance to work/school/hospitol/grocery store/etc. then I will galdly compare that with others and see if anyone has a smaller carbon footprint than you. If they do, then you must not be doing enough.
Message edited by author 2009-02-12 06:59:10. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 07:22:35 AM · #414 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
What is a person's TOTAL carbon footprint and is there a formula I can plug into to prove that a person is responsible? Driving a SUV or owning a larger home or having a vacation motorhome or going fishing with your grandchildren in a motorboat, is not necessarily irresponsible. It might be - but not necessarily - if one counters one choice with other choices. |
Ah, so a triple whopper for lunch every day is not necessarily bad if you counter it with salads at breakfast and dinner. A pack of cigarettes on Saturdays is not necessarily bad if you counter it with healthy living the rest of the week. Robbing banks once a month is not necessarily bad if you do charity work the rest of the time. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. As with the other cases, responsibility means trying to reduce detrimental impacts ALL the time, not just scoring enough credits to excuse being a pig the rest of the time. |
Things aren't always the extremes though. For example, I have a truck and need to drive it on many occasions. My truck produces more carbon than my car. I limit my truck driving to necessity rather than desire. I have a 1400 sf house that requires heating and air conditioning. My heat is set low when I'm home and lower when I'm not home. The opposite is true for my a/c. So I have to wear sweats or shorts - I still reduce my emissions. Everyone has things they have to do everyday that results in carbon emissions. Most of us can't go cold turkey, but do a little to make a difference.
At any rate, I'm way ahead of the game. My tree farm sucks up more carbon than my family creates. I'm in the negative. :) |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 08:35:01 AM · #415 |
| I'm always astonished when I see the fierce reaction of the sceptics who are afraid that fossil fuels will get outlawed..... For now it's just an appeal to everybody to be more reasonnable with our emissions, to keep them at the same level or to slightly reduce them. What's possibly wrong about that???? If we go on like that, outlawing will have to come. But first, we can just try to behave like the intelligent beings we're supposed to be. If you are so sure of yourself that today's level of CO2 emissions is harmless, well what's about tomorrow's level? Is anybody seriously convinced that we can go on and on being more and more excessive and never will have to pay the prize? Be honnest with yourself. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 09:00:41 AM · #416 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I think the key is what approach to climate change is the most cost effective.
I suggest reading the book 'Cool It' by Bjorn Lomborg
He goes into the cost of various solutions and what effect they will have on climate. A cost/benefit analysis per se. |
Lomborg does a very one-sided analysis that ignores a great deal of pertinent literature, particularly in his claims that climate change will lead to better health overall - a claim that flies in the face of the work of the WHO and similar scientific organizations.
The IPCC, the International Energy Agency, and the McKinsey Global Insitute put the cost of stabilizing CO2 450 ppb at near zero. The MGI estimated the costs at around 0.6 - 1.4% of GDP by 2030. |
What's the benefit in slowing the temperature increase for that cost? Will it take 5 days longer for the temperature rise to be at a certain point? I'm not saying do nothing. There are things we all can do to be less wasteful. That's a start.
Also, climate change in some areas would be beneficial. Longer growing season for one. It's definitely not beneficial in all areas and Lomborg acknowledges that. He covers both ends of the spectrum.
The key thing I'm getting from his writings is that if the money proposed to be spent to reduce carbon emissions were spent on alternatives that don't produce carbon emissions, you are benefiting more in the long run for a much lower cost. As we convert to these alternatives aren't we decreasing our carbon emissions as a result? |
Well, by FAR the cheapest place to get energy (and carbon) savings is through energy efficiency. The MGI report I mention above estimates we can get 40% of the way to CO2 stabilization at 450 ppb (a number widely used in the scientific community to represent an achievable goal that is likely to avoid catastrophic climate change) through energy efficiency alone.
As for the supposed benefits: a few degrees on a given day may not seem like a big deal. But that small change, over the period of a few decades, can drastically alter conditions on the earth. Similarly 5 degrees seems like a small change, but if you raise (or lower) your mean body temperature 5 degrees, you die.
The World Health Organization estimates that by the year 2000 (8 years ago) climate change was already responsible for 150,000 excess deaths per year. Moreover, the majority of these deaths, and those that will come if we don't act, will take place in the poorest parts of the world. A change of a couple of degrees in the tropics will have a dramatic impact on the number of malaria deaths, for instance (the time a malaria parasite has to spend in a mosquito before it's infectious is temperature dependent; too cold and the parasite can't mature before the mosquito dies). Rainfall patterns are expected to change (and may already be); more extreme events and more droughts mean poorer growing conditions (again, worst in poor areas where water storage or pumping is prohibitively expensive), more flooding, and less access to potable water. Sea level rise (which, by the way, new research is suggesting has been badly underestimated) could inundate huge areas of populated ground (since much of the world's population is concentrated on the coasts), such as most of southern Florida.
There's a great deal more; I can't get to at length today but I can post again tomorrow. Suffice to say that while some people always benefit from an upheaval, the vast majority do not. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 09:08:17 AM · #417 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
What is a person's TOTAL carbon footprint and is there a formula I can plug into to prove that a person is responsible? Driving a SUV or owning a larger home or having a vacation motorhome or going fishing with your grandchildren in a motorboat, is not necessarily irresponsible. It might be - but not necessarily - if one counters one choice with other choices. |
Ah, so a triple whopper for lunch every day is not necessarily bad if you counter it with salads at breakfast and dinner. A pack of cigarettes on Saturdays is not necessarily bad if you counter it with healthy living the rest of the week. Robbing banks once a month is not necessarily bad if you do charity work the rest of the time. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. As with the other cases, responsibility means trying to reduce detrimental impacts ALL the time, not just scoring enough credits to excuse being a pig the rest of the time. |
I actually disagree with this; what matters in the end is the whole global balance, not what one person does. We're not going to get everyone to ditch their old trucks (I have one) nor, in fact should we (more than 1/2 of the emissions of a vehicle over its lifetime occur during its manufacture). The solutions are going to come from systemic change, not from telling people to change their lightbulbs.
We can tell people to drive less, but we'll have far more impact designing walkable cities and getting rid of the bizarre incentives for suburban expansion. We can say we need to use less coal power, but we need to provide consumers with energy efficient appliances. The weatherizing provisions in the stimulus bill (did those survive? probably) are great - they save consumers money, and reduce emissions far more than changing light bulbs would, in a way that most consumers couldn't do by themselves.
In the end this is going to be a collective action if it is to succeed. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:14:14 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm assuming there aren't many people who dissagree with the fact that there IS a global warming trend...correct? (with the exception of a few).
The main question is whether we (humans) are responsible or not and there's no way of actually knowing or pinning the blame on ourselves with certainty.
Still it would be far smarter to assume we are part of the problem and go to whatever lengths possible to help reverse the trend if we are indeed responsible. Doesn't that make sense? |
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."
-- from Wikipedia.
How much certainty does one need? And yeah, it makes sense to accept we *are* part of the problem and to act accordingly. JMart said it very well on 12/20/2008 -- "Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance." |
ROFLMAO!!!!
Wikipedia without a reference is not a "reliable" source -- anyone from anywhere can post anything about anything.
There is STILL no evidence that man made activities are the cause of significant climate change (warm or cold). There is evidence to support the cyclical nature of weather for weather's sake.
Egads... we have enough REAL crises to worry about to start fabricating these. |
Ok, the IPCC:
There is a longer and more closely scrutinised temperature record and new model estimates of variability. The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Houghton et al, 2001 (Summary for Policy Makers) |
IPCC starts with the conviction that climate change is real (it's in their name). Find something objective. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:22:13 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm assuming there aren't many people who dissagree with the fact that there IS a global warming trend...correct? (with the exception of a few).
The main question is whether we (humans) are responsible or not and there's no way of actually knowing or pinning the blame on ourselves with certainty.
Still it would be far smarter to assume we are part of the problem and go to whatever lengths possible to help reverse the trend if we are indeed responsible. Doesn't that make sense? |
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."
-- from Wikipedia.
How much certainty does one need? And yeah, it makes sense to accept we *are* part of the problem and to act accordingly. JMart said it very well on 12/20/2008 -- "Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance." |
ROFLMAO!!!!
Wikipedia without a reference is not a "reliable" source -- anyone from anywhere can post anything about anything.
There is STILL no evidence that man made activities are the cause of significant climate change (warm or cold). There is evidence to support the cyclical nature of weather for weather's sake.
Egads... we have enough REAL crises to worry about to start fabricating these. |
Ok, the IPCC:
There is a longer and more closely scrutinised temperature record and new model estimates of variability. The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Houghton et al, 2001 (Summary for Policy Makers) |
IPCC starts with the conviction that climate change is real (it's in their name). Find something objective. |
This is an ad hominem argument - it says nothing about the validity of their claims. And frankly it's a silly one. If you have a criticism of their claims or methods, feel free to post it and I will respond. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 01:46:27 PM · #420 |
The reason some people are starting to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" is that the ill-informed among us think every cold day is evidence that global warming is a myth.
The debate over man's impact on climate change is a false debate. It's like the "debate" over the Holocaust. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 02:56:03 PM · #421 |
Blog rebutting climate skeptics arguments
yes it's a blog. Within the links are various citations. Will it change someone's mind? Maybe, maybe not, but it's an interesting read. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 03:46:45 PM · #422 |
| Science, good. Believe whatever the hell you want, bad. |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 04:01:49 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Science, good. Believe whatever the hell you want, bad. |
Let me put it another way: Science is knowledge, the rest is belief.
Yes it's arrogant, no there's nothing wrong in believeing something else.
:-p |
|
|
|
02/12/2009 04:02:22 PM · #424 |
Is meteorology a science? I'd say most would agree it is. The Science of Climate and Weather.
If so, and a meteorologist can't predict the weather accurately for even a week (or often less), how can they (climate scientists) predict the future of the climate/weather on the planet?
What is the normal climate of earth? It's been a lot hotter than now and a lot colder too. All before humans.
There's still a lot they don't know. Until 10 or 15 years ago they didn't know that gamma rays could come from stars and some suspect it was responsible for a mass extinction in the distant past. 20 years ago a meteor killed the dinosaurs, which were of course, lizards. Now they're birds and they were dead before the meteor hit the yucatan area.
I take most of what I hear with a grain of salt. Doctors used to give out salt pills in my dad's era, then they said salt was a terrible thing and to be avoided, and now it's back to being rather benign.
Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute. But don't lose sleep over carbon dioxide emmissions. We fixed the ozone with a lot less difficulty than the scientists claimed it would take.
Message edited by author 2009-02-12 16:03:40.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2009 04:05:41 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I take most of what I hear with a grain of salt. Doctors used to give out salt pills in my dad's era ... |
Yes, to people who perspire heavily during work or play ... now the sodium chloride (along with other electrolytes) is usually consumed in Gatorade ... |
|
