Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
chiloe, ed, et al
you act as if we "skeptics" are unaware of the "evidence" of agw...quite the contrary, for the past 2 1/2 decades (ever since the hysteria over the disappearing ozone disappeared) we've heard practically nothing but...ummm, al gore won an oscar and nobel; you can't pick up a newspaper or magazine or tune into a news program (local, national, or international) or even a network sitcom/drama/childrens' program without being reminded of how we're destroying the planet with our emissions...the media campaign to support agw is unprecedented (yes, many people have made billions of dollars promoting agw)
what we haven't had ready and immediate access to is the many highly credentialed scientists who doubt that warming is caused exclusively or even primarily by humans...and yet you accuse us of having our heads buried in the sand; in fact, we're the ones craning our necks, on high alert for danger while all of you continue to roll merrily along downhill at an ever increasing pace and lack of control...you're the ones rejecting debate; ignoring evidence; attacking, personally and professionally, any who voice dissent
as you continue to blindly promote economically crippling legislation, consider these tidbits from george will's column in wapo:
"China, nimble at the politics of pretending that is characteristic of climate-change theater, promises only to reduce its "carbon intensity" -- carbon emissions per unit of production. So China's emissions will rise.
Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen."
"The Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: "Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them." These scientists overstated and censored because they were "goaded" by skepticism?
Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.
Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.
The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."
The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.
Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over."
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Ed - I think you know I was not referring to adapting to some
economic ruinous climate change policy.
If its cold outside you put on a coat - adaptation to the climate.
or you could arrange propane powered space heaters along your
projected outside path to keep you warm - not as efficient as a coat.
I think the AGWarmers are in effect proposing just such inefficient solutions.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I for one want to see the data for this sh#t.
Oh really?
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Ed - Sorry but your example was so artfully insipid I did not get it.
People filter well water then add chlorine. Elementary tech being done
everywhere it can be.
CO2 is a gas, a plant food, and odorless. The Federal Standard for carbon dioxide limits in breathing air is 5,000 ppm (parts per million).
---
You can't think there was a time when the climate was not changing?
People have been adapting and will continue to adapt. Having our
resources taken/taxed to support AGW high priests so they can, in
effect, shake their juju rattles at the sky makes it harder to adapt.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Gee Ed. That's a question? Let me think.
Ok. I've been to Yosemite Valley. The glacier is gone. Climate change happened.
But you seem unable to admit being wrong Ed due to your emotional linkage to AGW. CO2 cuts will have the same effect on the climate as burning witches did in the dark ages.
None.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Ed mentioned the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society, arguably the first scientific society in the world. Isaac Newton was a prominent early member. The interesting thing being that he, and especially his supporters, had a vicious fight with Karl Leibnitz and his supporters with regard to who had discovered/invented calculus. An ugly personal fight, which made both look worse.
Scientists are human, too.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"Climate activists claim the receding ice is evidence of the need for developed countries to reduce carbon output. Actually, the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro have been receding since 1890, according to research by G. Kaser, et al., published in the International Journal of Climatology (2004). They note that when Ernest Hemingway published "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in 1936, the mountain had already lost more than half its surface ice area in the previous 56 years. This is more than it has lost in the 70 years since.
According to this study, and another published in Geophysical Research Letters (2006) by N.J. Kullen, et al., the reason the ice is disappearing is not warming temperatures, but a shift around 1880 toward drier climates. What we see today is a hangover from that climactic shift."
this is a great example to illustrate my point(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574577892593153408.html);; here are two studies (presumably "peer-reviewed") that appeared within the last 5 years that claim the melting ice on kilimanjaro is not due to agw...now, i don't know the science behind these studies, and i'm not asking anybody to accept these findings as "certain", "settled", "beyond debate", or "without doubt"...all i'm asking is that the debate ensue...make ALL the research available...require ALL scientists to defend their conclusions
and require that ALL legislators be able to accurately summarize and coherently explain any scientific research that is the basis of their voting
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
You're not interested in the science bookworm.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
thanks for making my point, dirtbag
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Thanks for proving my point bookworm. All your stuff comes from sources with a right wing spin. You've even posted crap like "25 reasons why global warming is BS" from a right wing blog. When a few of the forum scientists who know something about this topic try to clarify some things you dismiss it.
You're not interested in science. You embrace the right wing spin because it fits your world view.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
dirt, who cares where i found the references to scientific studies? instead of addressing the conclusions of these scientists who have different theories about kilimanjaro's melting ice, you just attack the messenger (be it me or some member of the imagined vast right-wing conspiracy), which proves my point that you're not interested in the debate...and the fact that i have to use blogs to find these references proves my point to chiloe that the opposing views are not being heard and, according to the emails, deliberately and maliciously hidden from the public
i've openly admitted i don't understand most of the science, and ed is very good about explaining the agw claims; however, counter arguments by scientists (NOT bloggers or reporters or "deniers" or corporate shills, etc) are dismissed or ignored
i'm interested in the science enough to ask for an open debate between scientists...you?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
dirt, who cares where i found the references to scientific studies? instead of addressing the conclusions of these scientists who have different theories about kilimanjaro's melting ice, you just attack the messenger (be it me or some member of the imagined vast right-wing conspiracy), which proves my point that you're not interested in the debate...and the fact that i have to use blogs to find these references proves my point to chiloe that the opposing views are not being heard and, according to the emails, deliberately and maliciously hidden from the public
I'm skeptical that I get the full truth from news sources with an axe to grind. If a more mainstream or reliable news source prints contrary views, then fine. But you or someone else would probably call me on my sources if I posted from a bunch of left wing journals to prove my points.
We need reliable news sources, not spin. There is way to much spin, and too little knowledge about science, in those sources you usually cite to be even half way reliable. They all want to influence opinion.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
The funny thing is, most other countries are far more serious about climate change than we are, and most have nothing to gain economically from such a policy (unless saving themselves from going underwater or being spared from extreme drought is an economic benefit)
THere are all these counties meeting over it now. They all are willing to work, sacrifice and take it seriously? Are they all dupes? Are the only wise ones in the world our right wingers?
It's the right wing US that fears climate change science...why?
It would be fun to see what you all said about CFCs, Asbestos and other fake threats.
Peace
Karl
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Karl, what's interesting too is that a lot of the conservative governments in Europe want to take action.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Here is the IPCC site where one can read the technical publications.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.htm
Just Google "IPCC" to find the main site.
If the populace at large is unable to comprehend scientific research written for the layperson you have to conclude our educational system has failed so badly we are now a "shaman" based culture.
As Ed has explained "evaluation" of scientific work does not proceed by each of us being qualified to repeat the work, even given the data. The lay person's task is to access the appropriately written texts from primary sources having the appropriate bona fides, to compare different sources and to look for inconsistencies. This is even what a trained person does at the start of their independent research.
An objection has been posted as regards the use of blogs as primary sources. We have no way of knowing whether a blogger claiming to provide correct and unbiased data is being truthful or even knowledgeable.
We can not treat all sources as being primary sources.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
I've been quietly chugging through this debate, trying to read as much as I can from both sides, and it seems that there isn't much of a scientific community who refutes the major findings of the IPCC.
I'm curious as to why this is such an emotionally charged topic. I find myself smack dab in the middle. I consider myself a scientist, a fairly smart fella and a reasonable thinker (couple of doctorates, surgeon for a living, a couple published papers in bone physiology, etc..) but because I am skeptical about the large scale effects of man on climate change I get labeled by the Lefties as a "close minded" right winger.
It just seems to me that we, the U.S., stand to make so much far reaching legislation that will cost so much effort, time and money that potentially may have no long term effects on the global climate. I truly believe that in ten years all the hardcore whiner Global Warmists will find that they were all worked up for nothing and that it cost us, the taxpayers so much because our administration charged ahead with its (Obama's) preconcieved plan. It feels like a George W. Bush WMD plan. We look back and realize his desire to go in outweighed rationale. I think the current liberal administration is doing the same thing. Bummer.
I am all for making our skies and streams and oceans "bluer". I want to start a "Blue Movement." Going Green is so 2001. My Go Blue Movement will be based on making ground level changes in an effort to lessen our smog, chemical dumping by big business, carbon footprint, waste, etc... The point will be to be a good steward of your environment without buying into the fact that man is killing mother earth and will continue to do so until the seas rise, we become a desert and the Liberal Government Agenda either bankrupts us or leads us into Socialist mediocrity.
Get your Go Blue shirts now at GOBLUE.org.
Micronut
Out
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|