Political & Elections

BigG · Guru

Climate Change scientist: halt economic growth in rich countries

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:
Grandstanding on a strawman argument.
I specifically said in my latest post that regardless of whether or not climate change is indeed the apocalypse, it is still important to pursue green technologies because it is in everybody's interest (well, except immoral polluting industrialists) for a planet that's more conducive to maintaining human civilization as we know it.
You're also making an elementary logical fallacy, in that because previous instances of extraordinary climate change were not precipitated by humans, that future extraordinary climate changes cannot be precipitated by humans (no matter what the evidence points to).

I also already said I support cleaner technology because it is better to pollute less.

Also, it is not a fallacy. My logic is that because previous instances of extraordinary climate change were not precipitated by humans, that future extraordinary climate changes MIGHT NOT be precipitated by humans.

catahoula · Guru

The academic community has a serious jones when it comes to grants and funding - if you want it, you better be advancing the cause the money is flowing towards.

The odd thing is, I can't recall another issue where the work of scientists has been so... exalted. From genetically engineered foodstuffs to the products of oil industry chemists, spit's the usual reward but for this issue, the environmentalists are calf-eyed, talking like they hung the moon.

busdriver11 · Guru

Ah, but non-scientists are convinced that motives of all scientists must be pure and logical. Apparently not so?

I like your avatar, BigG.

BigG · Guru

In the academic community, it has become stigmatizing to be a global warming skeptic.

It has nothing to do with real science and everything to do with defense of orthodoxy.

If data that contradicts orthodox science becomes available or is extant, it is denied or marginalized because it doesn't fit the consensual model.

Scientists are people too. Just as clergy can act against the foundation dictates of their faith, scientists can pervert the scientific method to suit their preconceptions.

busdriver11 · Guru

Congratulations on your "Veteran" status, Bullet. Who knows what you'll turn into after another 1,000 posts....

"if all the secular liberals needing something transcendent to believe in will stop pushing their most recent faith that requires global warming hysteria"

So true. It absolutely has become a religion, and it mystifies me. That intelligent people who have a complete disdain for anyone who believes in God, have turned into global warming earth worshippers that spurn any questioning whatsoever. The irony of it all. As an agnostic, I can tell you, it really is possible to not believe (or at least not be certain of) a higher power, whether it is mother earth or a God.

Bullet · Senior Member

Veteran Member Status achievement: unlocked! Woo-hoo!

Bullet · Senior Member

Forgot #4) It's not the NAVY'S JOB, as defined by Title X of the US Constitution.

Bullet · Senior Member

On the nuclear front - I've often wondered why the US Navy has not been tapped into for building all of our nuclear facilities. I can't imagine there is an entity in the US that has more experience with these reactors. Have them designed and built under Naval supervision and then turned over to the civilian companies. Who knows, perhaps the Navy could show a profit off of this. I'm sure someone here will have a good reason why this isn't a good idea.

1) Naval nuclear power plants designs are on a scale exponentially smaller than what would be required for civilian power plants. Quite frankly, the Navy's nuclear engineers, while brilliant individuals, just don't have the experience in building and operating power plants that large as their civilian counterparts.

2) So, the designing and building of our nuclear infrastructure should fall under the DoD? Ready to add a few hundred billion a year to that budget to pay for this? Ready to have the first thing considered every year when the DoD attempts to balance its budget be nuclear infrastructure? Ready to have the construction bid awarded to the lowest bidder for EVERYTHING involved? And since when has the DoD become the standard of excellence in developing ANYTHING on time and on budget?

3) Most important, see BigG's post above. The Navy would be no more successful stopping the environmental lobbyists than any civilian body. In fact, they'd probably have a tougher time, as they don't have any lobbyists of their own to counter the environmentalists' lawyers.

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

On the nuclear front - I've often wondered why the US Navy has not been tapped into for building all of our nuclear facilities. I can't imagine there is an entity in the US that has more experience with these reactors. Have them designed and built under Naval supervision and then turned over to the civilian companies. Who knows, perhaps the Navy could show a profit off of this. I'm sure someone here will have a good reason why this isn't a good idea.

BigG · Guru

When I consider the horrible mess the environmental lobby has made of the nuclear power industry in the United States, I come to the conclusion that they are alarmist Luddites who should be totally discounted.

Compare the French nuclear power effort with our own. They get over 75% of their electricity from nuclear power. That means there is "NO" "carbon footprint" for this power. They have standardized designs decreed by government but implemented by private industry.

We have everyone trying to re-invent the wheel every time we build a plant, Then the environmentalists try to knock the spokes out.

The inability of the environmentalists to realize that "no nukes" means burn more coal and natural gas makes me doubt they should have any say in public policy.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Woodwork · Senior Member

I, for one, am more than willing to go back to the argument that things that dirty the land, water and air, are pollution. That pollution on the whole is a very bad thing. That we should not pollute (give a hoot, etc.); if all the secular liberals needing something transcendent to believe in will stop pushing their most recent faith that requires global warming hysteria (whatever the current clewrics demand).

Peace.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:
did humans warm the Earth too much during the last ice age, and that is why all the wooly mammoths died?

all the warming and cooling before there were humans... what caused that? Now there is warming with humans, and we automatically attribute humans as the cause...

I support solar and wind power, electric cars, and new technology. I support them because it is better to pollute less. I do not support them because they are going to save the world from certain death.

no one wants to address the hugely corrupt carbon markets that are appearing thanks to the global warming cries?

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 10:15:28 PM

Grandstanding on a strawman argument.

I specifically said in my latest post that regardless of whether or not climate change is indeed the apocalypse, it is still important to pursue green technologies because it is in everybody's interest (well, except immoral polluting industrialists) for a planet that's more conducive to maintaining human civilization as we know it.

You're also making an elementary logical fallacy, in that because previous instances of extraordinary climate change were not precipitated by humans, that future extraordinary climate changes cannot be precipitated by humans (no matter what the evidence points to).

soccerguy315 · Guru

Cardinal Fang wrote:

OK then. I don't use a petroleum-based method of transportation; I get around by bike. When Fang Jr was little, I took him to daycare by bike. Later, he rode on the back of my tandem.

My house is solar-powered.

Your turn. I need to ride over to drop off some drycleaning and pick up some groceries.

congrats, what do you think your impact is on the global environment? Do you realize that one mega container ship pollutes as much as 50,000,000 cars? FIFTY MILLION CARS.

even if we deleted all the cars from the world, it wouldn't make a significant impact.

soccerguy315 · Guru

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/13/europe-kyoto-targets-emissions

The European Environment Agency reported that by the end of last year emissions produced by the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by 2020 . The original 15 EU member states who signed Kyoto have dropped their emissions by 6%, giving them "a headstart to reach and even over-achieve" their target under the treaty of an 8% reduction. Emissions from the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by the same date, added the report.

However a report due to be published soon by the Policy Exchange thinktank has measured the emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those countries and found that it has increased by more than 40%.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 10:14:22 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:
so, all the previous science was wrong, but now this science is right? Maybe in 40 years the 2010 science will be wrong too?

You do realize this is how science works, right? You formulate a theory based on available evidence, and discard it the moment it is proven wrong or a better one comes along.
Right now, there appears to be more evidence that points to human-induced global warming than to the contrary. Thus, science posits that until evidence to the contrary outweighs this evidence, the best conclusion we can make at this moment is that people are contributing to climate change.
-------------------------------------

did humans warm the Earth too much during the last ice age, and that is why all the wooly mammoths died?

all the warming and cooling before there were humans... what caused that? Now there is warming with humans, and we automatically attribute humans as the cause...

I support solar and wind power, electric cars, and new technology. I support them because it is better to pollute less. I do not support them because they are going to save the world from certain death.

no one wants to address the hugely corrupt carbon markets that are appearing thanks to the global warming cries?

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 10:15:28 PM

catahoula · Guru

I haven't seen them either.

Scary thought, but... is it because there aren't any? That it's the old "pay up-front and we'll be around to put that new roof on in a week or so" scam?

I'm beginning to seriously empathize with all those gullible, crazy old cat ladies.

longprime · Guru

da numbers don't matter

catahoula · Guru

RE: Climate Change scientist: halt economic growth in rich countries

longprime · Guru

wrong arguments

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

RE: Climate Change scientist: halt economic growth in rich countries

john doe · Guru

Real data vs predicted data is always a bitch!

catahoula · Guru

Cardinal:

Here's what is arguably the first, though certainly not last, embarassing prediction from the AGW scientific community, the one that convinced poor old Al that he could share his fears with the media of film.

You'll notice that rather than the doomsday scenario that Hansen predicted to Congress in 1988, if C02 emission continued to increase, the reality is that temperatures have at best tracked what he predicted would be the result of drastic carbon cuts.

If the type is unreadable to you, let me know and I'll cut and paste from the body of the paper.

catahoula · Guru

I am astounded at the number of posters who are willing to dismiss scientific consensus as untrustworthy.

Hmm... consensus:

1a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

I suppose you're referring to the general agreement among the climate scientists of the IPCC when you use the word, though it would serve just as well to describe the group solidarity that exists throughout the community of liberal arts granola scarfers.

An incovenient point, though: you do realize the history of the IPCC is rife with scientists saying "no mas" when they saw the liberties their lead authors took with describing the consensu opinion of their group? And that the executive summaries put out by the political types in charge tend to ad-lib the conclusions or beliefs of the working grunts?

If you've anything that details the consensus opinon of the rest of the scientific community, the one not dependent on grant money from the government or environment groups for a career, please share it.

Wildwood · In exile

I am astounded at the number of posters who are willing to dismiss scientific consensus as untrustworthy. There may be some bad, selfish or dishonest scientists out there, but as a community, who are you going to trust more on this issue? Politicians? Business? Grassroots organizations? How can people ignore such an overwhelming common opinion of experts who study this? The arguments of a few scientific dissenters have been refuted time and time again. Even if there is a chance that somehow the vast majority of scientific thought on this question will be found out to be wrong, shouldn't people recognize scientists as the best authority that we have on this issue?

Soccerguy, I actually agree that eventually the earth will be destroyed one way or another, but I do hope by that time scientists will have devised ways for us to colonize other (empty) planets so that the human race might survive. For that, an extra 500 years or whatever might be helpful. I don't think we have to live in huts to try to prolong the time we have here, it would it involve much smaller sacrifice.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Which generally endorsed (by scientists, I mean) predictions of climate scientists are you saying were incorrect? For example, which predictions from the IPCC report have turned out to be incorrect? Or you can pick one of the other major scientific bodies, link to its consensus report, and tell us where it was wrong.

Woodwork · Senior Member

If the proponents of global warming patronized McDonald's, Target, and believed that poetry ended when free verse came along, would that make you more receptive to their arguments?

Too tough to call.

It would help, however if they were right on their predictions of doom (and more cash/power) say, half the time, or close to it. At least then I would have an even chance of doing the right thing half the time.

I expect better than this from super smart guys...even from plumbers and rug-cleaners.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

FFF wrote:

Wow! Its amazing how many universities and research organizations employ scientific ignoramuses.

Are we counting places like Lib U as real universities? And Tulane has a bona fide creationist in its biology department, I believe. What a disgrace.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

You do realize this is how science works, right? You formulate a theory based on available evidence, and discard it the moment it is proven wrong or a better one comes along.

No, NO, NO!!!

"Science" is a thing done by human beings. When a new theory comes along, the people who made careers of espousing the "old" theories attack the "new" with all the resources at their command in order to maintain the status quo. With the delays inherent in the "peer reviewed" publication system, it takes years and even decades to gain acceptance for "new" science. Extension, slight modification, or validations of accepted theory is MUCH easier to get published.

The only reason the "Manhatten Project" proceeded at beakneck pace was the goad of war. The "cold war" was the motivator for the success of the space progrem.

Any radical departure from accepted orthodoxy is viewed with suspision and hostility, not objectivity.

A new thing must have an overwhelming preponderance of data in order to supplant the old.

The biggest advantage of the free interprise system is that it allows the marketplace, not government nabobs or academic "authorities", to decide what works and is valuable. This is also a disadvantage when the time horizon of a circumstance like "global warming" exceeds the limited time horizon of the free enterprise marketplace.

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 4th of December 2010 04:52:19 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 4th of December 2010 05:00:34 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 4th of December 2010 05:00:59 AM

I think you're getting science mixed up with scientists.

Of course there are self-interested scientists who have personal reasons to impede the progress of science.

Science as an abstract ideal is about gathering evidence and testing it and coming up with the best possible explanation at that point. That explanations acts as a placeholder, fully aware of the near inevitability that it will one day be supplanted by a more complete or perhaps totally different explanation.

But as you said, humans and scientists can get in the way of science.

BigG · Guru

You do realize this is how science works, right? You formulate a theory based on available evidence, and discard it the moment it is proven wrong or a better one comes along.

No, NO, NO!!!

"Science" is a thing done by human beings. When a new theory comes along, the people who made careers of espousing the "old" theories attack the "new" with all the resources at their command in order to maintain the status quo. With the delays inherent in the "peer reviewed" publication system, it takes years and even decades to gain acceptance for "new" science. Extension, slight modification, or validations of accepted theory is MUCH easier to get published.

The only reason the "Manhatten Project" proceeded at beakneck pace was the goad of war. The "cold war" was the motivator for the success of the space progrem.

Any radical departure from accepted orthodoxy is viewed with suspision and hostility, not objectivity.

A new thing must have an overwhelming preponderance of data in order to supplant the old.

The biggest advantage of the free interprise system is that it allows the marketplace, not government nabobs or academic "authorities", to decide what works and is valuable. This is also a disadvantage when the time horizon of a circumstance like "global warming" exceeds the limited time horizon of the free enterprise marketplace.

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 4th of December 2010 04:52:19 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 4th of December 2010 05:00:34 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 4th of December 2010 05:00:59 AM

geeps20 · Senior Member

the data was all manipulated, yet the sheep still have to believe.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

if the global warming climatologists were right a little more often, they'd have a few more believers.

It's sad, actually. They keep being right. Worse, a lot of the latest data and the latest predictions are falling in the worse end of the previous predicted ranges. The fact that I'll probably never have grandchildren is bothering me less.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:
so, all the previous science was wrong, but now this science is right? Maybe in 40 years the 2010 science will be wrong too?

You do realize this is how science works, right? You formulate a theory based on available evidence, and discard it the moment it is proven wrong or a better one comes along.

Right now, there appears to be more evidence that points to human-induced global warming than to the contrary. Thus, science posits that until evidence to the contrary outweighs this evidence, the best conclusion we can make at this moment is that people are contributing to climate change.

Partisans and the intellectually feeble will usually stick to appeals to probability in the face of evidence, that just because something is not impossible, that it is valid to believe.

busdriver11 · Guru

If the global warming climatologists were right a little more often, they'd have a few more believers. If people screaming the loudest about this weren't pocketing as much money as possible from the outcry while flying around int their private jets, they'd have a few more believers. If they weren't trying to dictate money transfers from wealthier countries to poorer countries, they'd have more believers. If they weren't trying to start idiotic scams like carbon exchanges and cap and trade, there would be far more believers. If they didn't try to crush all dissent or questioning, there would be significantly more believers.

You see, if the loud voices crying out weren't so exaggerated, arrogant and money grubbing.....well, you get the point.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

so, all the previous science was wrong, but now this science is right?

That is the way scientific theories work, yeah. And by the way, global warming and global climate change are the same thing. The whole world is getting warmer, but as a result, in each place the climate is changing. Some places are predicted to get wetter (I believe my Silicon Valley is one such), some hotter, some colder; of course the local predictions are very uncertain, though the simple fact of world heating is quite robust.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Soccerguy and woodwork, I think you should ask yourselves whether you might be denying global warming because it's too horrible to contemplate.

Soccerguy, I look at your article from Time magazine from 1974 and I see a report of some scientists in the then-nascent field of climate science advancing a theory. As we now know, that theory turned out to be wrong. I hope you don't reject all science because some new theories turn out to be wrong.

The scientists started out with a little sketchy data, some of which pointed in one direction.
Now, scientists have a whole lot of data, and it (sadly) points in a different direction. We now must conclude that the earth is warming, at (for the earth) lightning speed, because of human actions.

so, all the previous science was wrong, but now this science is right? Maybe in 40 years the 2010 science will be wrong too?

I do not deny global warming. Obviously the Earth is getting warmer. However, I am not convinced that humans are the only thing that drives the Earth's temperature.

Additionally, everyone who claims the big worry about global warming wants significant government intervention to solve the problem. Why is the solution always more government?

There are completely faulty "carbon markets" appearing around the world, which are just another way to give power and money to certain people and/or companies. Al Gore pushes carbon credits... to save the Earth? No. Because he has a company that sells carbon credits. aka, he pushes global warming TO MAKE HIMSELF RICH.

Kyoto was a massive failure. Why? Obviously because the majority of people do not see this issue as important. There are climate conferences every now and then... everyone flies in on their private jet. Why? They are not helping the problem they are preaching about.

There used to be an ice age. Now there is not. The Earth global warmed since then. Did humans cause it? Is the Earth better off now, or when there were sabertooth tigers? Obviously from a human point of view, it is better off now.

Eventually, humans will die out on Earth. Either we will stay here until there is nothing left, the sun will explode and we will all die, or an asteroid will impact the Earth making the environment unlivable for humans. When any of these instances happen, either the human race will die, or the human race will continue on other planets and in other solar systems.

In my opinion, it is ignorant to think that humans can manipulate the environment to do what they want. There are countless things that we don't understand. We populate one tiny planet in one tiny solar system in one tiny galaxy... that said, humans are no push over. Do you realize we went from a few second flight on the beach in 1903, to landing on the moon in 1969? It only took 66 years... that is, to me, honestly just flat out astounding.

I will conclude with this: even if you could guarantee that the at the current rate, the Earth was going to end in the year 2500 due directly to human activities, and that if we all lived in dirt houses and didn't drive cars (say, if we lived like, 500AD style), we could guarantee the future of the earth until the year 5000 or longer, I don't think I would support that change. We should enjoy what we have now.

Is our future on Earth? maybe, but maybe not. That bridge will be crossed when needed.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Friday 3rd of December 2010 10:08:52 PM

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Friday 3rd of December 2010 10:10:47 PM

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Woodwork wrote:

However, for me, one of the those reasons would not be the dopey secular religion of “global warming,” ney, “climate change” or whatever the new branding will ultimately require just to create the correct buzz amongst the patrons of Starbucks, Wholefoods and the local poetry-slam, without the inconvenience of the apodictic proof that causation requires. As it is, I’m still trying to deal with our imminent demise from nuclear winter, SAR’s, Avian Flu and global cooling.

I sense culture war resentment.

If the proponents of global warming patronized McDonald's, Target, and believed that poetry ended when free verse came along, would that make you more receptive to their arguments?

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/11/cancun_talks_start_with_a_call.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,732303,00.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8178162/Are-we-freezing-because-of-global-warming.html

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

Let's start a Universal Warming movement.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Soccerguy and woodwork, I think you should ask yourselves whether you might be denying global warming because it's too horrible to contemplate.

Sadly true.

And I feel the same uneasiness about Armageddon and the Hindoo...I mean Hindu doomsday prophecies for 2012 (stubbornly, I even refused to see the movies…same with Al Gore’s Oscar winner). And it is worth noting that these traditional doomsday scenarios cum retributions for traditional sin have stood the test of time and been around a good while longer that those proposed by the one-world-government climate-scientists who, in the last 30 years have gone from predicting global cooling to global warming to climate change (talk about a good merchandising fix!), not to mention numerous other revenue producing predictions of doom that have come and gone, after achieving tenure. In truth, these ersatz prophets of weather and weather-professors are a bunch of pikers (give me an experienced Amerindian rain-dancer if you want to change the weather), comparatively speaking. At least the Hindu's and Christians have not tried to re-brand their end-time predictions over the last 2000+ years and when it comes to droughts the Amerindians have a track-record of good timing and an unaccountable sense of rhythm.

Still, I suppose everybody’s got to believe in something; gotta serve somebody, as Dylan would say –don’t need a weatherman, and all. Me too. For me, the belief in Global Warming or Cooling is protected under the 1st amendment clause protecting freedom of religion. Feel the same way about Wiccans and Christian Scientists. My kids tell me, I am tolerant to a fault. I say, I’m just an optimistic guy. Live and let live.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

OK then. I don't use a petroleum-based method of transportation; I get around by bike. When Fang Jr was little, I took him to daycare by bike. Later, he rode on the back of my tandem.

My house is solar-powered.

Your turn. I need to ride over to drop off some drycleaning and pick up some groceries.

Simply put, every single drop of petroleum based fuel is going to be used on this planet. It's very hard to logically come up with reasoning for rationing its usage when that single fact dominates the discussion.

-- Edited by Abyss on Friday 3rd of December 2010 09:51:56 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

OK then. I don't use a petroleum-based method of transportation; I get around by bike. When Fang Jr was little, I took him to daycare by bike. Later, he rode on the back of my tandem.

My house is solar-powered.

Your turn. I need to ride over to drop off some drycleaning and pick up some groceries.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Soccerguy and woodwork, I think you should ask yourselves whether you might be denying global warming because it's too horrible to contemplate.

Soccerguy, I look at your article from Time magazine from 1974 and I see a report of some scientists in the then-nascent field of climate science advancing a theory. As we now know, that theory turned out to be wrong. I hope you don't reject all science because some new theories turn out to be wrong.

The scientists started out with a little sketchy data, some of which pointed in one direction.
Now, scientists have a whole lot of data, and it (sadly) points in a different direction. We now must conclude that the earth is warming, at (for the earth) lightning speed, because of human actions.

Remember AIDS? Remember how at first scientists didn't understand why all those gay men were getting what had previously been a very rare cancer? There were various theories, various potential explanations. But eventually, the weight of the evidence settled on the HIV virus being the cause.

Some dead-enders, including a very few scientists and some powerful political leaders, still don't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. Those holdouts are causing a lot of death, and the rest of us wish they would throw away their blinders and accept what the evidence is showing them.

Some people, including thoughtful, well-meaning people on this board, still reject the fact of global warming. The rest of us wish you guys would look at the overwhelming evidence, and ask yourselves why essentially all the scientists in the world who have studied the issue are wrong and you are right. Consider Thabo Mbeki, the former President of South Africa whose AIDS denialism is estimated to have caused 330,000 deaths. Incorrect beliefs can have serious consequences.

Okay. You first.

I see big talk from the left. In the end their actions tell me all I need to know. A bunch of hypocrites that use petroleum based transportation methods. A bunch of hypocrites that have no problem with transcontinental flights. A bunch of hypocrites that have no problem using all the various trappings of a first world economy.

At the end of the day, if climate change scientists say that halting economic growth is the solution - **** em. I'd rather continue going into the unknown. Human ingenuity is not something to discount.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Soccerguy and woodwork, I think you should ask yourselves whether you might be denying global warming because it's too horrible to contemplate.

Soccerguy, I look at your article from Time magazine from 1974 and I see a report of some scientists in the then-nascent field of climate science advancing a theory. As we now know, that theory turned out to be wrong. I hope you don't reject all science because some new theories turn out to be wrong.

The scientists started out with a little sketchy data, some of which pointed in one direction.
Now, scientists have a whole lot of data, and it (sadly) points in a different direction. We now must conclude that the earth is warming, at (for the earth) lightning speed, because of human actions.

Remember AIDS? Remember how at first scientists didn't understand why all those gay men were getting what had previously been a very rare cancer? There were various theories, various potential explanations. But eventually, the weight of the evidence settled on the HIV virus being the cause.

Some dead-enders, including a very few scientists and some powerful political leaders, still don't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. Those holdouts are causing a lot of death, and the rest of us wish they would throw away their blinders and accept what the evidence is showing them.

Some people, including thoughtful, well-meaning people on this board, still reject the fact of global warming. The rest of us wish you guys would look at the overwhelming evidence, and ask yourselves why essentially all the scientists in the world who have studied the issue are wrong and you are right. Consider Thabo Mbeki, the former President of South Africa whose AIDS denialism is estimated to have caused 330,000 deaths. Incorrect beliefs can have serious consequences.

Woodwork · Senior Member

As an inveterate conservative, I am all for taking care of the neighborhood, the soil and the water we use and share. All of which are a very big part of my life. Conserve! I hate unnecessary and lazy pollution and love recycling composting and making things locally and by hand (I am, as they say, a woodworker, after all). I’d much love to see my local forest of oak & ash in all its pristine beauty kept free of beer bottles, washing machines and decrepit air-conditioners. I like to sail and fish…I love to see the blue water whipped into white froth and foam without the sewage tint of petroleum and sewage. I almost never motor in the water and stick to the wind. It is not just a sport but a spiritual experience shared by my whole family. To me, there are too many reasons to keep the land around you beautiful and clean to mention. However, for me, one of the those reasons would not be the dopey secular religion of “global warming,” ney, “climate change” or whatever the new branding will ultimately require just to create the correct buzz amongst the patrons of Starbucks, Wholefoods and the local poetry-slam, without the inconvenience of the apodictic proof that causation requires. As it is, I’m still trying to deal with our imminent demise from nuclear winter, SAR’s, Avian Flu and global cooling.

As for Hindoo’s dilapidated Forrester: it’s probably an oil burner that should be shot and left to die where it stands. Hindoo herself, on the other hand, is too adorable, charming and fun to fault for the obvious environmental and aesthetic faux pas of tooling about in a ’98 Forrester. Plus…she loves horses and lives in Kentucky –that gives her 100 points on my score card.

BigG · Guru

Already happened except for government "cooking the books" to avoid panic;

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/news/economy/november_jobs_report/

DOOOOM!!!

soccerguy315 · Guru

Science: Another Ice Age?

June 24, 1974

----------------------------

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere...

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling...

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
----------------------------

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

longprime · Guru

Cat's Nose, is on Google's image file, 'dog nose'

You nose, you can never find a nose when you nose its always there.

I tried 'tails' butt its not the same. evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 07:36:08 PM

catahoula · Guru

He's sort of sensitive about the nostrils, Hindoo, but he does have the kind of nose that just begs for someone to climb right up, doesn't he?

You've a lovely girl in your sig picture and here's hoping you and all of yours are doing well.

Hindoo · Senior Member

Cat ... As you know, I am a person of very little brain, and you have overwhelmed me with your scientific mumbo-jumbo. I only know what I know--and that's that we're not taking as good care of the only home we know, as we should be. :( But I LOVE your dog's snout.

-- Edited by Hindoo on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 05:32:31 PM