Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
-
My opinion of the global warming "issue". The old orb has been around for a helluva long time. Science shows you that it has gone through change after change. The current "issue" presumes the orb's current state is the correct state and the human population should do everything in their power to keep it thus so that people living inland continnue living inland, people living on the seashore continue above water, warm areas stay warm and cold stay cold. Pure fucking human arrogance. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Pure f****ing human arrogance.
Right. That must be the only reason. Jeremy Falcon
-
Consensus isn't a scientific word, the discovery of scientific truth is not a democratic process. It's a damn shame both sides of this debate are so heavily politicised, the green lobby being particularly adept at misrepresenting science - who would listen to organisations on a scientific issue that have banning chlorine as official policies? Still, I get the impression that the planet is warming, and we probably are making a contribution. What we also need to think about is what can we do about it, and is it necessarily a bad thing in the first place? Political solutions to reducing our carbon output to the extent required to actually make a difference (as opposed to simply serving as a source of government revenue, or another stock market commodity) are untenable. We are just going to have to learn to deal. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I get the impression that the planet is warming, and we probably are making a contribution. What we also need to think about is what can we do about it, and is it necessarily a bad thing in the first place?
It's a bad thing if it contributes to severe weather conditions and deaths. Also, my house in Arizona will decrease in value if the land becomes too hot and uninhabitable. :)
-
peterchen wrote:
The point is: we don't know.
Yes, we agree, and quite simply the point. So before we start making all these changes, shouldn't we find out? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
see my last sentence above ;) Seriously, "we the people" act like kids that are to make it to the border by noon, still arguing whether we should wear sunglasses instead of getting on the road.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -- modified at 15:27 Wednesday 14th June, 2006 -
peterchen wrote:
The point is: we don't know.
Yes, we agree, and quite simply the point. So before we start making all these changes, shouldn't we find out? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
So before we start making all these changes, shouldn't we find out?
Only if we don't discover too late that the changes should have been made but weren't because we were waiting for 100% proof.
-
peterchen wrote:
of course, these things are simpler if you are republican.
Troll. Jeremy Falcon
I always thought of making this my sig - imagine the effect on programming questions ;) and no, I'm not serious about that statement
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I get the impression that the planet is warming, and we probably are making a contribution. What we also need to think about is what can we do about it, and is it necessarily a bad thing in the first place?
It's a bad thing if it contributes to severe weather conditions and deaths. Also, my house in Arizona will decrease in value if the land becomes too hot and uninhabitable. :)
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
It's a bad thing if it contributes to severe weather conditions and deaths.
Agreed, but weather kills people as is, I have heard arguments that warming may both increase or decrease severe weather events. Then there's the matter of avoiding another ice age.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
my house in Arizona
From the perspective of a Brit who gets uncomfortable at 28 degrees, it already is ;) Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
kgaddy wrote:
So before we start making all these changes, shouldn't we find out?
Only if we don't discover too late that the changes should have been made but weren't because we were waiting for 100% proof.
-
Link "Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."" "But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites? No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field. " My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
If anyone is interested, I've found that this site seems to be a good resource for climate change issues. Contributors are climate scientists, writting on their own time. http://www.realclimate.org/[^] As an example, here is a brief discussion of "How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?" http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87[^]
-
Link "Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."" "But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites? No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field. " My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
The worst part is, Al Gore is probably going to hurt the case for climate change if the popularization is sloppy. I'm trying to wade my way through IPCC Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Evidence[^] so that I can (finally) have an informed opinion about this. - F
-
I'd settle for 51% proof. We are not even close. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
I'd settle for 51% proof. We are not even close.
There are things we can and should do even with no proof or 1% proof. What's wrong with increasing the average fuel efficiency of vehicles by 3 miles per gallon? That single change would lower the amount of pollutants emitted by 5% and would have the salutory side effect of lowering gasoline consumption enough for the U.S. to completely swear off middle-Eastern oil. Why do you want to twiddle your thumbs and do nothing?
-
My opinion of the global warming "issue". The old orb has been around for a helluva long time. Science shows you that it has gone through change after change. The current "issue" presumes the orb's current state is the correct state and the human population should do everything in their power to keep it thus so that people living inland continnue living inland, people living on the seashore continue above water, warm areas stay warm and cold stay cold. Pure fucking human arrogance. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My opinion of the global warming "issue". The old orb has been around for a helluva long time. Science shows you that it has gone through change after change. The current "issue" presumes the orb's current state is the correct state and the human population should do everything in their power to keep it thus so that people living inland continnue living inland, people living on the seashore continue above water, warm areas stay warm and cold stay cold.
Science also estimates that >99% of all species that have lived on earth are now extinct. And things can get pretty nasty for a species without it going extinct. http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/bil160/bil160goods/10_extinct.html[^] The earth will get along fine, because the earth doesn't care who or what lives or dies or has a hard time or an easy time. Human beings care passionately about all sorts of things that mean nothing to the earth and it is absurd to make arguments that suppose otherwise.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Pure f****ing human arrogance.
It is unclear how a concern to reduce the human impact on the environment is more arrogant than the absence of such a concern. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
kgaddy wrote:
I'd settle for 51% proof. We are not even close.
There are things we can and should do even with no proof or 1% proof. What's wrong with increasing the average fuel efficiency of vehicles by 3 miles per gallon? That single change would lower the amount of pollutants emitted by 5% and would have the salutory side effect of lowering gasoline consumption enough for the U.S. to completely swear off middle-Eastern oil. Why do you want to twiddle your thumbs and do nothing?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
There are things we can and should do even with no proof or 1% proof. What's wrong with increasing the average fuel efficiency of vehicles by 3 miles per gallon?
Thats been done. Look at the average MPG 20 years ago compared to today. I'm all for this. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
There are things we can and should do even with no proof or 1% proof. What's wrong with increasing the average fuel efficiency of vehicles by 3 miles per gallon?
Thats been done. Look at the average MPG 20 years ago compared to today. I'm all for this. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
Thats been done. Look at the average MPG 20 years ago compared to today
Look how the U.S. automakers kicked and screamed about doing it, look how many congressmen they bribed to get out of doing it, and look how the Japanese and Koreans have actually done it and kicked the ass of the U.S. automakers. Your mom was only partly right; apparently, the U.S. automakers don't understand an asskicking, because they're still fighting tooth and nail against improved fuel economy and reduced emissions.
-
kgaddy wrote:
Thats been done. Look at the average MPG 20 years ago compared to today
Look how the U.S. automakers kicked and screamed about doing it, look how many congressmen they bribed to get out of doing it, and look how the Japanese and Koreans have actually done it and kicked the ass of the U.S. automakers. Your mom was only partly right; apparently, the U.S. automakers don't understand an asskicking, because they're still fighting tooth and nail against improved fuel economy and reduced emissions.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
because they're still fighting tooth and nail against improved fuel economy and reduced emissions.
Actually, they seem to be doing a lot. Look at all the hybrids. And this kind of change is not bad. It's things like Kyoto that scares the hell out of me. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
because they're still fighting tooth and nail against improved fuel economy and reduced emissions.
Actually, they seem to be doing a lot. Look at all the hybrids. And this kind of change is not bad. It's things like Kyoto that scares the hell out of me. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
Look at all the hybrids.
Japanese Hybrids ---------------- Honda Civic Toyota Prius Honda Accord Toyota Highlander Lexus RX 400h Honda Insight Toyota Camry American Hybrids ---------------- Ford Escape GM Silverado