For the original poster's post to cary ANY WEIGHT, they must first tell us why the cause matters. It does not matter. The consequences/result is what matters. Show me peer reviewed and scholarly science that debunks the consequences, no matter the cause, then you have a point. If a reduction in carbon emmisions slows naturally caused climate change, we should still reduce those emmisions until cities can be prepared, ski resots can shut down and polar bears preserved.
A better analogy is to the debate over whether smoking causes cancer. For you kiddies out there, this was maybe 20-30 years ago. Every other month, there would be some report featuring the work of various scientists (who, it turns out, were usually employed by somebody who was employed by some tobacco company) debunking the myth propagated by 'liberal academics', all of whom were in cahoots, that smoking causes cancer. This would be followed by the finger-waving and tut-tutting of various conservative pundits and their cheap imitators (future ditto-heads) that 'correlation is not causation'. Remember? You lunk-heads probably still think that, don't you: correlation is not causation? That's essentially what those who deny that humans are the cause of global warming are now arguing. Those who don't think the planet is warming are beyond reason.
As Deep Throat said, 'follow the money'. Those with the most to gain are most likely to lie. I'm a professor of mathematics and I know several scientists (they work with colleagues who specialize in mathematical modeling) who have done original research on global warming. None of them have made a dime from it - indeed, in most cases they have lost money doing it, since the current administration won't fund it. You think they're lying and scientists working for big tobacco oops.. I mean big oil are just interested in the truth?!?! Or maybe you think you understand science better than somebody who, you know, has a degree in it. Do tell.
[quote]snatch wrote:
Show me peer reviewed and scholarly science that debunks the consequences, no matter the cause, then you have a point. quote]
We don't know what the consequences will be so there is nothing to debunk. There is not a "consensus" that proves sea levels will rise 30 feet. There are only predictions based on computer models. We only have the past to look to see what happened after global temperature changes. What have been the consequences of warmer global temperatures since the Ice Age? I'd say humanity has done pretty well during that time.
paradoxically, as we take the particules(aerosols) which decrease solar warming out of the atmosphere, it takes the brakes off global warming.
snatch wrote:
For the original poster's post to cary ANY WEIGHT, they must first tell us why the cause matters. It does not matter. The consequences/result is what matters. Show me peer reviewed and scholarly science that debunks the consequences, no matter the cause, then you have a point. If a reduction in carbon emmisions slows naturally caused climate change, we should still reduce those emmisions until cities can be prepared, ski resots can shut down and polar bears preserved.
the man made global warming alarmist are the ones with the burden to show that the actions they propose will help. they are the ones proposing the massive changes to the economy and how we live.
the burden of proof is on the one who makes the proposal to act to show his proposal is sound. you are shifting the burden of proof.
as an aside, since the earth has been warmer in the past and we still have polar bears, i suspect they are going to be just fine. i also have a vague memory of a very recent article that said in some places the polar bear population is increasing now.
Can you recommend a good bunker construction company?
global warming or not why is okay to just waste everything? what does a person get out of that, that should be the question, and if money is the problem, high costs now will pay off in the long run with energy saving devices anyways... so why not just do things for the common sense of saving energy and resources?
Flashback,
hahahaha thats some funny $hit. You stole those lines from The Matrix. Blah blah...humans are a virus and all the crap. You've got to be the biggest f*cking tree hugger ever. Go grab so granola and chain yourself to a tree in the woods so that I can cut that f*cker down to put in my living room as my Christmas Tree (yeah thats right Christmas tree its not a f*cking holiday tree.)
To the other guy...we should close ski resorts?
A few years ago the conservatives and other global warming deniers claimed the earth wasn't warming at all.
Now they admit the earth is warming, but claim it doesn't have anything to do with pollution or CO2 or anything like that. PROBABLY just the sun heating up or somethin.
A few years from now, they'll probably admit that man is causing global warming, but they'll argue it's a good thing, or some other dumb argument.
First, I have not decided whether global warming is caused by man or not. I am still researching both sides.
My thoughts about those who claim the only scientists who believe global warming is not caused by man is receiving money from oil companies. What about those 4000 scientists who do believe in man's causing the effect. The billions of dollars in federal or international grants don't make them bias?
That argument is lame!
Interestingly, the best weather modeling computers in the US at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) in Boulder can't model the weather for more than 100 hours at best. So, we are to believe what? That they can somehow predict patterns well into the future, with very subtle changes over the next 100 years?
The models do not match the observations.
Yes, scientists fabricate data every day of the week. Next.
Ripped from the headlines:
Scientist Given A 60-Day Term For False Data
A nationally recognized drug therapy researcher was sentenced Thursday to 60 days in a halfway house for submitting false data to the National Institute of Mental Health on the treatment of mentally retarded children.
Suit cites false-data desires, racial bias at lab
FRANKLIN — A former scientist for Huntingdon Life Sciences claims in a lawsuit that supervisors at the animal-testing laboratory pressured him into falsifying research data then fired him after he refused.
Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
we are not talking about another ice age. the levels of co2 that will accumulate in the next 50 years are 2-3 times the highest levels found going back 650,000 years.
if you think the economy is going to be hurt by using green technology, which will create millions of jobs, wait 'til the greenland ice sheet slides in the atlantic. that might only displace a few hundred million people...
and what are governments doing about this - nothing!do you think that ted kennedy and the kennedy clan are selling their vacation estate on martha's vineyard? absolutely not - why do you think this is?
runbaby wrote:
we are not talking about another ice age. the levels of co2 that will accumulate in the next 50 years are 2-3 times the highest levels found going back 650,000 years.
if you think the economy is going to be hurt by using green technology, which will create millions of jobs, wait 'til the greenland ice sheet slides in the atlantic. that might only displace a few hundred million people...
HighPlainsDrifter wrote:
Interestingly, the best weather modeling computers in the US at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) in Boulder can't model the weather for more than 100 hours at best. So, we are to believe what? That they can somehow predict patterns well into the future, with very subtle changes over the next 100 years?
You dummy. Weather and climate are two different things. Weather models have nothing to do with climate.
Maldives is now upset that it will not be able to sue "the west" for aid due to flooding.
Nils-Axel Mörner: Freed from condemnation to become flooded
Abstract: The Maldives like other low-lying areas have been condemned by IPCC to become flooded in 50-100 years. The INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (the international organisation that hosts the true world specialists on sea level changes) have studied the actual sea level changes in the Maldives and hope to be able to extend the studies to other parts of SE Asia. Our findings reveal that there is no reality behind the scenario of a recent future flooding. The sea level has not been rising in the Maldives in the last centuries and at around 1970 it even experienced a significant lowering. The models of IPCC are simply over-ruled by the theory and observation by sea level specialists within INQUA. We should all be happy about this, one would assume. This is not the case, however. The government of the Maldives has put much prestige in the fear of a future flooding, accusing the west of having caused this situation and demanding them to pay for it. Without a flooding scenario, they now fear that international aid might be cancelled. In this situation, our scientific studies in the Maldives are regarded as anti-governmental and we are now working under very complicated conditions. For the people of the Maldives it is a great relief not to live under a constant threat that all will be gone in one or two generations. For science it is necessary to be able to go on recording the true story and not having to rely on absurd models not anchored in field observations. For a poor country like the Maldives they should always be entitled to become assisted by countries in the west. Furthermore, a coastal like the Maldives is always threatened by coastal events (storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc) that may have disastrous effects on a short-term scale. References: Mörner, N.-A. in Integrated Coastal Zone Management , Launch Ed., 17-20 and Second Ed., 33-37 (IPC Publ. Ltd, 2000).
Sweet Lou wrote:
Flashback,
hahahaha thats some funny $hit. You stole those lines from The Matrix. Blah blah...humans are a virus and all the crap. You've got to be the biggest f*cking tree hugger ever. Go grab so granola and chain yourself to a tree in the woods so that I can cut that f*cker down to put in my living room as my Christmas Tree (yeah thats right Christmas tree its not a f*cking holiday tree.)
To the other guy...we should close ski resorts?
Hey Sweet Lou - (I bet you got that nickname in prison)
Never seen the Matrix, and don't care to, but I did notice you didn't (can't) deny the premise that humans are not positive organisms from the planet's perspective. What you missed was my apathy to the whole situation. I'm not a tree-hugger. I don't give a crap about saving a tree's life any more than I do yours. In the grand scheme, it just doesn't matter. We live, we die, time marches on - with or without us. From a selfish perspective I'd like to be around awhile, and I'd like my kids to have a shot at a decent existence. But if the human race dies out in 200 years, I could give a crap. Humans are no more worthy of saving than any other being - unless you are a believer in the Flying Spagetti Monster, or one of it's parallels.
interestingly enough, there are quite a few supporters of the fsm theory - perhaps even a consensus?
Enough to put it on par with most other religions/superstitions.
I was wondering about the "Mars warming" thing myself. It took me, oh, 5 minutes -- well, maybe 6 -- to track it down.
If you're interested, try this link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/index.php?p=192
and there's useful information in comment #13.
If you're really interested in the subject, spend a few hours on realclimate.org. I hadn't known about it until last week.
It's disappointing to me to see how many people fall for the second, third, fourth, and who really knows how many-hand information that's out there.
You owe it to yourself to get as close to the sources as possible. And believe me, the Washington Times isn't it.
Though in the WT's favor, they do have a faithful running correspondent who does a good job with the DC-VA-MD scene.