1) I'm sorry, the case has been made so many times that I assume everyone who cares to hear it has heard it. I'm sorry for making that assumption, you're correct. While this is scientific data, it is an emotional issue for those of us who realize that our society as it is cannot sustain itself. We don't have time to wait 10 years and see what happens. If we wait 10 years, we will experience massive food shortages for the reasons I explained earlier. The most likely thing to happen is that a heat wave/rising seas will destroy China's harvest. As one of the largest wheat exporters in the world, they're going to look to us to feed them. Obviously we don't have enough to feed all of them and ourselves, so we're going to tell them to F off. They're going to bring up the fact that they carry most of our debt and that we can pay them in food. I'm not sure what will happen when we say no again, but it isn't going to be good.2) We just gave you a bunch of good peer reviewed science showing that as CO2 concentrations increase, so does temperature.3)I wasn't speaking of you specifically with that, more the other people in the thread as a reason for being frustrated. No matter what you say to some people, all they do is attack the people, not the issue or the science.I'm going to Virginia this weekend for the Yuengling Marathon. This thread will probably be dead by the time I get back on Tuesday, so have a good weekend and I hope you enjoy your reading.
rose colored glasses? wrote:
No Way wrote:(1) it is just frustrating when someone doesn't believe what you're saying without even researching the issue.(2) You'll notice that you've had several posters provide helpful scientific evidence to support the case for global warming,
(3) all the deniers do is make fun of NASA or make fun of Al Gore.
(1) You had provided no case other than "this is generally accepted by climate scientists to be true" or the like. No point being frustrated that someone won't quickly cave in to your point of view without pushing back. Life' too short to get frustrated about what other people choose to believe. (As an aside, I think that in itself is an interesting related topic of discussion, what compells people to get emotionally attached to supposedly science-based opinions...)
(2) I disagree, so far I've seen very little of what I would consider defensible peer-reviewed science. Just a lot of out of context snippets with no clear link back to the science.
(3) Well, I'm not a denier, I'm more like ambivalent, but skeptical of both camps' strongly held (and emotionally pitched) views.
I will read through these papers and mull some more.