PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming



Dave_Sinkula
12-04-2006, 11:50 PM
I must confess, I haven't read the following yet:
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/UnstoppableGlobalWarming.pdf

But it was the topic of an interview I was listening to on my commute home this evening.

And heck, we haven't had a nice little 'God' thread in a while, so let's see what comes of this.

Discuss.

SlyMaelstrom
12-05-2006, 12:50 AM
I read the first half of it and it's all stuff I've heard before. They have quite a good amount of evidence to support their claim and really shouldn't be ignored. Some of what they say directly conflicts with theories made by the pro-global warming groups, which bugs me. This tells me that someone is lying. Both sides appear to have "evidence" but they both know that the average Joe simply doesn't have enough time or knowledge to go over that evidence and make our own judgements, so we have to consult with experts who historically have lied time and time again to push an agenda. I don't know what to believe. I personally think we should do something about the emissions rates in this country, but I think we should do it for our lungs and bodies, not because it may or may not be killing the O-Zone. Maybe it will help that, too, but who knows. I definitely don't think we should push ourselves close to an economic recession to try and make this global warming problem stop which is really what the terms of the Kyoto Protocol expect from us if we signed.

Oh, and sorry I didn't read the whole thing, I'm a bit on the busy side. I didn't see anything about "God" in there, in fact the word didn't come up in a search, either... so I don't know what you're asking there. Perhaps you'd like to summarize the second half? I'll probably get to it myself, anyway when I can find the time.

Kennedy
12-05-2006, 01:02 AM
I live in the Heart of Dixie. . . Alabama. . . nice warm humid state. . . EXCEPT. . .


I have just come in from my Taylor Waterstove. I put in a 300 pound 2.5 ft X 3 ft log this morning; my heater was empty tonight. The wife's Jeep has an outside temperature gauge. . . 26F. . . Please tell me: Where is this "Global warming" and when is it to begin? I'm FREEZING down here!!!!

EDIT: Oh, they are anti-global warming. . . I get it.

anonytmouse
12-05-2006, 01:48 AM
I know that Americans are convinced that climate change is a global conspiracy by the scientific community to destroy America, but it's really not! Of course, I could be in on the conspiracy! Doh, now I've confused myself. [1] :D


Of the authors, you can read about Fred Singer here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer) and the other author is an economist. You can read a response at realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/).

Incidentally, it has been nearly exactly a year since the last thread on climate change. My post (http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showpost.php?p=520991&postcount=11) in that thread still stands, only moreso with the additional science over the last year.

[1] Phew, by using the word "doh", from a loveable American television character, I've proved that I can't be in on the conspiracy, or can I?

SlyMaelstrom
12-05-2006, 02:03 AM
It not a question of whether there is or isn't human induced climate change, it's a question of if that's the sole reason for the climate change. Much of the precautions we take to stop global warming bases it's agenda on the fact that the climate change is completely due to humans. If we were to find out that only a portion of it is our emissions problems we wouldn't need to be so hasty in changing it.

vart
12-05-2006, 02:22 AM
If we were to find out that only a portion of it is our emissions problems we wouldn't need to be so hasty in changing it.
If the human's effort can move the catastrofic subsequences of the global warming from say 25 years to 250 years in the future it will be still worthy...
Because the longer time till the X day may give enough technology strength to prevent Armageddon to happen...

So I think, it depens and say: "Hey! we are not only ones responsible" is not enough.

SlyMaelstrom
12-05-2006, 02:39 AM
No, think of it like this... let's say we have a leaky roof in our house that lets in about a gallon of water every time it rains, but also, every spring time our house also gets flooded with ground water that we can't prevent. Now, obviously the gallon of water coming in during the rain isn't helping, but since it's really only a portion of the flooding problem, do you think we should pull funding away from other necessities in order to patch up the roof or would you say it's better to take a little more time and try to put some savings away to fix it down the road?

I don't know if what these guys are saying about the warming cycle is true and I don't know if everything the global warming guys are saying is true, but I think we should put just as much research into one as the other. Even the response cited by anonytmouse says there is known natural climate changes but appears to not consider them often in their counter points. The also put a whole lot of words into this author's mouth and try to imply he was saying something he wasn't. "Avery’s implicit promise would seem to be that with rising CO2, the heavens will part and let the excess energy out," Note the use of "the heavens" as if to say the Avery is basing he studies off of religion. This would lead the less informed to think of him as a religious nut and not a scientist. I must say, I'm not a fan of that article Anony.

Anyway, as I said, I think we should do something about emissions and I think we actually are starting to do something, I don't feel we need to take away money from other things to get something done faster than it may need to be.

VirtualAce
12-05-2006, 03:56 AM
I am a huge weather fanatic and as such I realize that short of Katrina most of the severely intense weather has happened in the past during times that we had no greenhouse emissions. So basing any findings on current weather patterns is downright ridiculous since we only have about 100 years of actual recorded weather. How do we know what happened 1000 years ago or how bad the storms were? Do you realize that 100 years in the scope of climate change is like hardly a drop in the bucket. It is insane to suggest just because we have some bad storm or more snow or less rain or more rain it is caused by something that has not even been on the earth for that long.
It's a big earth with a big ecosystem that has time and time proven it can survive just about anything. So when climate can be affected by the flap of a butterfly's wings and in a time when our weather forecasts are only extremely accurate out to about 2 hours or so I hardly doubt we can pinpoint the exact cause of our problem...if there is one. I believe we are seeing a normal climate shift that is far beyond our control. You really want to believe the crazy reports when we cannot even tell if it's really going to rain tomorrow or not?

For forecasting the weather forecasters are given 4 or 5 models from the computer systems and it is the forecaster's job to determine which one he thinks is going to happen. He relays this to several other forecasters on staff at the National Weather Service and they discuss all of the possibilities. They arrive at an agreed upon forecast through compromise, observation, experience, and weather history or by what it has done in the past in a similar situation. Predicting huge climate changes is just simply not possible with our current weather models or even saying that this or that pollutant affected the weather is also in the impossible realm. We just don't know.

And what of an eruption like Mt. Saint Helens which blew out one half of the mountaintop and released enough ash to cover cities? I'd say she put out more sulfur and greenhouse gases in 1 minute than we have in 200 years.
There is evidence of what has been called 'The Little Ice Age' in which average temps fell significantly. Some claim we are still in this period and that just now we may be coming out of it.

Personally I think it's too extreme on either side of the argument and the correct answer is probably somewhere down the middle of both sides. Reducing emissions cannot be bad for sure so we should strive for that. However banning ideas and technologies that make our economies what they are is just as ludicrous as saying we shouldn't give a rat's ass what we stick in the atmosphere.

I agree that both sides probably have concrete evidence for and against global warming. But I also agree that both sides are pushing an agenda and both sides tend to get into radicalism and name calling. You are not a stupid scientist if you believe something is affecting our climate but just as equally so you are not stupid for believing that something is not enough to affect our climate. Calling one side stupid or claiming the facts 100% point to this or that is ludicrous since neither side has 100% concrete undisputable evidence of the claims they make.

So I say let's do all we can to reduce emissions if anything to just improve the air quality which may in turn help our lungs and lead to a healthier lifestyle. But let's not go off the deep end and start banning this or that in a radical effort to rid ourselves of fossil fuels. Do that and you may find yourself like California did a few years ago....in the dark without power.

Dissata
12-05-2006, 04:31 AM
I am a huge weather fanatic and as such I realize that short of Katrina most of the severely intense weather has happened in the past during times that we had no greenhouse emissions. So basing any findings on current weather patterns is downright ridiculous since we only have about 100 years of actual recorded weather. How do we know what happened 1000 years ago or how bad the storms were? Do you realize that 100 years in the scope of climate change is like hardly a drop in the bucket. It is insane to suggest just because we have some bad storm or more snow or less rain or more rain it is caused by something that has not even been on the earth for that long.
It's a big earth with a big ecosystem that has time and time proven it can survive just about anything. So when climate can be affected by the flap of a butterfly's wings and in a time when our weather forecasts are only extremely accurate out to about 2 hours or so I hardly doubt we can pinpoint the exact cause of our problem...if there is one. I believe we are seeing a normal climate shift that is far beyond our control. You really want to believe the crazy reports when we cannot even tell if it's really going to rain tomorrow or not?

For forecasting the weather forecasters are given 4 or 5 models from the computer systems and it is the forecaster's job to determine which one he thinks is going to happen. He relays this to several other forecasters on staff at the National Weather Service and they discuss all of the possibilities. They arrive at an agreed upon forecast through compromise, observation, experience, and weather history or by what it has done in the past in a similar situation. Predicting huge climate changes is just simply not possible with our current weather models or even saying that this or that pollutant affected the weather is also in the impossible realm. We just don't know.

And what of an eruption like Mt. Saint Helens which blew out one half of the mountaintop and released enough ash to cover cities? I'd say she put out more sulfur and greenhouse gases in 1 minute than we have in 200 years.
There is evidence of what has been called 'The Little Ice Age' in which average temps fell significantly. Some claim we are still in this period and that just now we may be coming out of it.

Personally I think it's too extreme on either side of the argument and the correct answer is probably somewhere down the middle of both sides. Reducing emissions cannot be bad for sure so we should strive for that. However banning ideas and technologies that make our economies what they are is just as ludicrous as saying we shouldn't give a rat's ass what we stick in the atmosphere.

I agree that both sides probably have concrete evidence for and against global warming. But I also agree that both sides are pushing an agenda and both sides tend to get into radicalism and name calling. You are not a stupid scientist if you believe something is affecting our climate but just as equally so you are not stupid for believing that something is not enough to affect our climate. Calling one side stupid or claiming the facts 100% point to this or that is ludicrous since neither side has 100% concrete undisputable evidence of the claims they make.

So I say let's do all we can to reduce emissions if anything to just improve the air quality which may in turn help our lungs and lead to a healthier lifestyle. But let's not go off the deep end and start banning this or that in a radical effort to rid ourselves of fossil fuels. Do that and you may find yourself like California did a few years ago....in the dark without power.


3 cheers for dialectics!

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 05:15 AM
Fortunately there's a third moderate side who only tries to understand if something is going on, and why. Earth experienced many natural climate events that had a global scope, were severe, and lasted for decades, centuries and thousands of years. They had no relation to human activity since there weren't any humans.

That there is some sort of a climate shift, I don't think we can deny it. Personally, I never experienced 50C (122F) heat waves before. And we had two lasting around 7 days each in the past 4 years. I never saw a tornado before, we had 3 in 2 years (I still didn't see them, they happened further south). I never had rainless freezing cold winters. We had 2 in the past 10 years.

If it is mankind doing I don't know. Some scientists barricade themselves on the yes, and some on the no. I however tend not to listen to economists or politicians on these matters.

It thus all boils down to... belief.

I'm on the yes side, if for nothing else, for the fact some prominent scientists seem to be. However, like them, I'm a cautious yes. It seems to me it is as much ridiculous to completely deny it, as it is to completely support it. We simply don't have the science yet to support our claims.

SlyMaelstrom
12-05-2006, 06:05 AM
Where did you see a 122° heatwave? O_O

In the 20 years I've lived in New Jersey, I noticed almost no difference in the weather. The smallest difference is that it seems the snow comes later and later every year. Really, that's about it. Maybe Jersey is a safe haven from the weather problems.

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 06:32 AM
I was talking about Portugal. 2003 and 2005 summers were the worst in recorded climatic events over here (dating back to 1837). We are a warm country by european standards, reaching occasionally 45C (113F). But even so we experience such temperatures during 2 or 3 days, tops, and not every year.

Like I said I don't know what to make of it. I don't think skilled scientists know either. But... it would pay to be just a little more cautious. I'm a believer we have the power to change our planet at a global scale.

Magos
12-05-2006, 08:28 AM
All I know is that here in Sweden we'd usually have at least a meter snow by this time (like 10-15 years ago). Today we have green grass, buds and even flower sightings. Bears won't go to sleep either...
Oh, and today I'm only wearing a T-shirt outside. In December?

SlyMaelstrom
12-05-2006, 10:13 AM
All I know is that here in Sweden we'd usually have at least a meter snow by this time (like 10-15 years ago). Today we have green grass, buds and even flower sightings. Bears won't go to sleep either...
Oh, and today I'm only wearing a T-shirt outside. In December?Again, the point being made is whether or not this is a natural change or human change or more likely a mix of both.

Clyde
12-05-2006, 12:15 PM
I personally think we should do something about the emissions rates in this country, but I think we should do it for our lungs and bodies, not because it may or may not be killing the O-Zone.


Global warming != ozone hole

Clyde
12-05-2006, 12:18 PM
So when climate can be affected by the flap of a butterfly's wings and in a time when our weather forecasts are only extremely accurate out to about 2 hours or so I hardly doubt we can pinpoint the exact cause of our problem...if there is one. I believe we are seeing a normal climate shift that is far beyond our control. You really want to believe the crazy reports when we cannot even tell if it's really going to rain tomorrow or not?


Meteorology != Climatology.

indigo0086
12-05-2006, 12:24 PM
Release The Butterflies!!!

Kennedy
12-05-2006, 03:04 PM
::::Clears throat::::: ::::Winks at Dave::::: ::::Thumps Bible:::::

Dave asked for it, here it is:

My opinion on the matter is that God created the world. God destroyed man from the Earth early on (but for 8 persons) and God made a promise to only do it one more time, but then with fire. Therefore, man can do nothing to this world. Are you afraid of a nuclear holocaust? Why? Do you really believe the an atomic bomb can produce more radiation than the sun? Notice that we haven't burned up yet from the sun. As it has been mentioned, one volcano can put more "bad stuff" into the air than ALL humans for multiple years.

It is insane that humanity believes that we are soooooo important on this Earth that WE can make changes to it.

::::Thumps Bible again:::: ::::Nods head to Dave::::: ::::whispers to Dave:::: "There you are, sir!"

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 03:47 PM
> It is insane that humanity believes that we are soooooo important on this Earth that WE can make changes to it.

That is soooooo GODish. You can join a few alleluias.

Kennedy
12-05-2006, 03:50 PM
> It is insane that humanity believes that we are soooooo important on this Earth that WE can make changes to it.

That is soooooo GODish. You can join a few alleluias.
And your point is. . .

And, is this supposed to be an insult or a compliment?

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 04:18 PM
Calm down.

I find it... interesting your interpretation of a nuclear holocaust and the notion we are just too small to affect our planet. And even more interesting when you say we can't do nothing to this world because God will. That... Well, I'll refrain myself.

I'm really not sure how I should approach this. If saying that's just insane and still hope to have a good conversation with you without you dropping a "blasphemous!" on me, or just ignoring the whole thing and move on.

Kennedy
12-05-2006, 04:23 PM
I'm not upset. I really didn't see a point. And, I really did wonder what you did mean by that. Talking about religion and politics doesn't get me spun up. I was a PK for the first 25 years of my life, now I'm not. That, however, does teach one to not care what others think. And, as for me "dropping a \"blasphemous on\"" you just isn't going to happen. You clearly don't want to believe in God. . . who am I to blow against the wind.

I'd be interested as to what you refrained from saying. You won't offend me, however, I cannot speak for anyone else on this board.

Clyde
12-05-2006, 04:30 PM
Are you afraid of a nuclear holocaust? Why? Do you really believe the an atomic bomb can produce more radiation than the sun? Notice that we haven't burned up yet from the sun.


Uh we're kinda far from the sun, you can go stand next to detonating nuclear weapon if you like....



As it has been mentioned, one volcano can put more "bad stuff" into the air than ALL humans for multiple years.

It is insane that humanity believes that we are soooooo important on this Earth that WE can make changes to it.


Atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 31% since the pre-industrial era with most of the increase occuring after 1945. No one seriously doubts that the increase in CO2 is not primarily due to human activity.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Increase_of_greenhouse_gases

It really is quite clear that we can alter global chemical phenomena i mean we bit a chunk out of the ozone layer through CFC use which shows that there is no magic barrier stopping the environment being affected.

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 04:31 PM
Oh. Nothing much. Just that I found the argumentation ridiculous, Kennedy, according to my own stance on these matters, of course. For me the notion that humanity can't sufficiently alter the planet because that's God's job is just too ludicrous.

BobMcGee123
12-05-2006, 04:40 PM
Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. Good, informative movie. Watch it.

SlyMaelstrom
12-05-2006, 04:46 PM
Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. Good, informative movie. Watch it.The original article in this topic cites several inaccuracies in that movie. Read it. :)

Kennedy
12-05-2006, 05:10 PM
It really is quite clear that we can alter global chemical phenomena i mean we bit a chunk out of the ozone layer through CFC use which shows that there is no magic barrier stopping the environment being affected.
Did we? Really? That's odd. I didn't realize that we had accurate readings on the ozone layer before. In fact, there were studies that show the hole actually shrinks and grows over time. Do we make it grow and shrink?

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 05:22 PM
And since you are so interested about accurate facts, which is quiet fine and very scientific-like, can you please be so kind and share with us accurate facts about God not allowing us to destroy our planet?

Thank you.

Clyde
12-05-2006, 05:48 PM
Did we?


Yes.



Really?


Yes.



That's odd.


Not really - CFCs release stratospheric chlorine which causes catalytic loss cycles (chlorine rapidly eats ozone without getting used up meaning unless quenched a single molecule of chlorine can destroy an infinite amount of ozone).



I didn't realize that we had accurate readings on the ozone layer before.


http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/total_ozone.gif

- the blurb that goes with that picture says:



The graph to the right shows the measured total ozone above the Halley Bay station in Antarctica. Each point represents the average total ozone for the month of October. Note the sudden change in the curve after about 1975. By 1994, the total ozone in October was less than half its value during the 1970s, 20 years previous. This dramatic fall in ozone was caused by the use of man-made chemicals known as 'halocarbons' which include the well-known CFCs commonly used in fridges and so on. These CFCs had made their way into the upper atmosphere where the much stronger UV radiation from the Sun had broken them down into their component molecules, releasing the potentially damaging chlorine (and bromine) atoms, which, given the right conditions, could destroy ozone. We'll learn more about the chemistry behind the loss of ozone in Part III of this tour.

Regular ozone measurement have been made from the Halley Bay Research Station for many years. Ozone depletion is most marked in the Antarctic Spring, around October.


- http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part2.html



In fact, there were studies that show the hole actually shrinks and grows over time. Do we make it grow and shrink?

Phenomena can be influenced by more than one variable. Just because other factors influence the ozone/the climate/the population of algae in the sea/etc, does not mean we do not.

The ozone layer is in constant flux because ozone is constantly being formed and broken down. Factors like solar radiation can influence the ozone concentration but we know now that CFC-mediated ozonolysis was the driving force behind the gradual unravelling of the ozone layer (3% loss per decade) and the "hole" present at the antartic and to lesser extent at the artic.

The phenomena is well understood, a combination of satelite imaging, atmospheric sampling, test-tube style chemistry and theoretical modelling have elucidated the major mechanisms beyond reasonable doubt which is why there is scientic concensus on the topic.

Kennedy
12-05-2006, 05:48 PM
The base, however, from which I would explain such a principle, you fundamentally discard as "too ludicrous". Again, I'll not be caught blowing against the wind.

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 05:58 PM
> The base, however, from which I would explain such a principle, you fundamentally discard as "too ludicrous". Again, I'll not be caught blowing against the wind.

right.

Dave_Sinkula
12-05-2006, 08:59 PM
First, sorry -- I'm about 30 responses behind. So this mostly addresses some earlier stuff (partly prepared earlier, but distractions arose).
RE: my mention of a 'God' thread

Sorry, I was speaking in an old tongue:

'God' thread, n.
a lengthy series of posts on a topic in which opposing sides cannot prove that either side is correct or incorrect
see GodSo the intent was to provoke people opnions on the matter of global warming.

@anonytmouse
Yes, my apolgies. I didn't search the board first. :(
But in the article I posted, there are a number of claims that would dispute your bulleted items.

@Sly
I thought the Q&A at the end was the better part. I believe that's where some of the things like issues with Science magazine's article picking 932 of 12,000 papers.

I did finally read the whole thing, but of course I haven't had the time to go through all the references yet. (Any help if you find things mentioned, such as Climate Change Science Program report 1.1, would be appreciated.)I just brought it up because at times the "facts" seem to be presented so one-sided as to portray any counter-argument, however scientific, as automatically crackpot. I found it somewhat refreshing to hear something that could provoke debate (or just call me rabble-rousing).

I'm not terribly studied in this, but it seems to me that global warming alarmists sound too much like the ruling establishment in Copernican times trying very hard to fight off attacks on their model.

whiteflags
12-06-2006, 12:23 AM
I once wrote that, in relative terms, if someone didn't believe in global warming by tomorrow I would personally punch them in the face. But I wasn't a member at that board, so the message was never written until now.

Ranking end of days theories:
+ global warming
+ the asteroid
+ dark matter
+ Sol changing (going supernova or becoming some sort of Giant)
+ black holes
+ The Biblical Apocalypse
+ Volcanoes
+ Cows

Throughout history people have enjoyed dooming themselves to keep a reason for staying alive.

For those that don't get it, I'm not serious. I can't believe I even have to write this, but both sides are being equally stubborn, wouldn't you agree? I think the bigger problem is that we need to stop using non-renewable resources, like oil. Fortunately we're on top of that, so that's cool.

Dave_Sinkula
12-06-2006, 01:34 AM
I'm being stubborn, and a bit of a prick...
I think the bigger problem is that we need to stop using non-renewable resources, like oil....but who says it's not renewable?

[edit]http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040608-092733-4642r

whiteflags
12-06-2006, 02:26 AM
Mass media, smart people, and crazies (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/) alike would have you believe that oil works on a bell curve. I'm not the first person to post about it but with such a vast array of people behind one theory I thought that they were going to be right, due to the sheer amount of brainpower behind them. But the Russians are smart too, and may be the only ones alive after the asteroid because they have the bombs, man.

Nodtveidt
12-06-2006, 03:18 AM
Much of the world seems to be moving towards solar power these days, likely due to the "European energy crisis". Solar cell manufacturers (who are typically very small and build them by hand) have been flooded with work over the past couple of years. It's become so bad that you have to wait at least a year with most places now. I was looking into powering our (my wife and I) new house with solar but since we can't get set up for at least a year, I kinda put such an idea to the sidelines...

VirtualAce
12-06-2006, 04:15 AM
I tend to believe that in most situations cooler heads prevail.

Alarmists on both sides need to chill, compromise, get more scientific evidence, and then layout their claims.

Too often today in the mass media, books, and now sadly scientific journals the practice is to write first and research later. Several theories now abound that just don't have as much proof as the sources would have you believe.

In modern times like we live in today I'd say our responsibility to stay informed now rests more on our ability to cipher through the vast amounts of information out there than believe our once trusted news and science sources. It used to be that you could believe this report or that but this is not so anymore and probably in part due to the internet and how fast and readily available different sources of information are available. It used to take a book or a published source to refute a claim or a theory and now it just takes a bit of money and a website.

I welcome debate on these issues and also welcome taking to task some of the 'accepted' theories. If anything it will make both sides of any issue dig that much deeper when they know they are going to be held accountable for their findings.

Clyde
12-06-2006, 06:06 AM
Too often today in the mass media, books, and now sadly scientific journals the practice is to write first and research later. Several theories now abound that just don't have as much proof as the sources would have you believe.




In modern times like we live in today I'd say our responsibility to stay informed now rests more on our ability to cipher through the vast amounts of information out there than believe our once trusted news and science sources.


I don't think scientific journals have changed, some anti-global warming types appear to claim conspiracy, but then the anti-evolution types claim conspiracy, the anti-quantum mechanics types claim conspiracy. Anyone who is anti any orthodox view point invariably claims the system is out to get them.

Science is a very conservative buisness, people don't accept stuff easily at all, to convince the scientific community you need strong evidence, i find it compelling that there is majority backing of the human-mediated global warming view point. Further i note that the credability of some of the major skeptics are seriously undermined by either A) lack of exposure to environmental science or B) links with oil industry.

That does not mean there are not credible experienced people out there who disagree with the impact of human activites on the climate, there are, but they are in a small minority. If one feels unable to analyse the science then all one can do is go with the majority expert opinion. At the very least it should surely carry some weight.

From my perspective I think the basic pro-human climate change case that we know the climate is warming we know there is a correlation of this warming with CO2 output, that we know CO2 traps heat, that we know 50 different models examining the question of whether this CO2 increase would have an effect all predicted warming between 1-5 degrees is enough to justify cutting back on emissions. That's not because i think it gives us certainity but because given the risk of significant environmental and economic cost if we do nothing and are wrong, i can't help feel that it's the only reasonable cause of action to take.

Mario F.
12-06-2006, 06:13 AM
What I find most ironic is our immediate willingness to accept all the talks about global warming are bullocks and the ramblings of a bunch of doomsday preachers. Doomsday preachers, I may add, that are among the top scientists in the world.

And then we immediately take for granted a presentation made by an unknown scientist and an economist trying to overthrow the global warming theory. That is just too funny... or too sad. I don't know anymore.

In fact, we haven't changed at all since the days of Socrates.

indigo0086
12-06-2006, 11:14 AM
Ah, yes, our glorious loving god, who'll burn is all to sinder...I love him so much, as he does me...crispy me.