Governments reject GW as a reality
-
What you are forgetting is that petrol is a waste product, it is only used for driving cars. Most oil is turned into products, plastics, nylons, medicine etc, so we will need oil for a while yet, even if we all drive cars powered by a Mr Fusion car engine. Still, there is always coal, and Britain has about 20,000 years reserves.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
Still, there is always coal, and Britain has about 20,000 years reserves.
THis really does show the staggering amount of CO2 that used ot be in the atmosphere prior to the carboniferous period. And is still a staggering amount of energy.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It would put 30,000+ people back into work, reduce our need for foriegn imports and secure our domestic energy requirements.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Yep, if it wasnt for the unions, and GW, it would have happened. Mind you germany subsidies of 50 lus quid a tonne doesnt make UK coal competetive either. There must be a correlation where if oil goes above such and such coal becomes ecconomically viable, like the oil sands in canada.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
As we all knew many governments spouted GWisms just to get the green votes, and then actually did nothing. Well, it seems either the green vote was so small, or those voters have turned because now major world governments are finally waking up to the fact that support for GW policies are almost non existant, and, unnecessary: "Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism." http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1182-green-catastrophism-collapses.html[^] Thanks god for a bit of sanity at last. I was worried for a while that our so called leaders might actually take AGW seriously. I always hoped they could see through it, and now it is apparent they do. Not that I am against renewable energy, and the industry and jobs it creates, on the contrary, I am very much in favour. But AGW alarmism has not only damaged the world of science, it has also damaged the world of renewable energy. Reasonable people will for decades when presented with the words 'science' or 'renewable' always start to laugh, remembering the ridiculaous scam called AGW that so abused these words their value became derrided to the point of worthlessness. And that, is a shame. On a global scale.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Thanks god for a bit of sanity at last. I was worried for a while that our so called leaders might actually take AGW seriously. I always hoped they could see through it, and now it is apparent they do.
You know, you continuously insult the AGW crowd for jumping on a bandwagon without sufficient proof, but you're doing the same thing on your side of the fence. You've already decided what you want the answer to be, and you assume that anyone who thinks otherwise is a scam artist. Try thinking like a real scientist. Keep your mind open to either possibility, and let the facts point the way. I know your instinctive response to this will be to prattle on about how X temperature in Y region hasn't risen in the past Z years, but for every report like that, there's another one that points out the opposite. Next, you'll attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC group, which distracts attention away from other scientists who have come to similar conclusions as them. Then you'll start trying to oversimplify the problem by applying what you learned in high school about absorption spectrums, without taking into account the structure of the atmosphere, its circulation patterns, and the different positive and negative feedback cycles which modify every effect. If your point is that we shouldn't be making far-reaching policies because we don't know the answer yet, then I do agree with you (Though I think a push for renewable energy is still needed for other reasons). If you're against any "green" movement simply because you hate the entire concept of "AGW," then I think you're just as closed-minded as the alarmists.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
As we all knew many governments spouted GWisms just to get the green votes, and then actually did nothing.
Not Australia, our previous PM, Kevin Rudd, signed the Kyoto protocol you know.
-
I'll write[^] when I get home... :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
What a thoroughly usefull site! Thanks! And its nice to see AGW is finally getting put on the back burner. Very satisfying. It just shows that people arent as stupid as politicans and certain scientists think. The arrogant bastards.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
And got sacked for doing so.
Actually, no he didn't. He was sacked by his party because they were of the opinion he'd not win another election. The promise of signing Kyoto was a large part of the reason he was elected.
Josh Gray wrote:
Actually, no he didn't. He was sacked by his party because they were of the opinion he'd not win another election. The promise of signing Kyoto was a large part of the reason he was elected.
Well, thats a matter of causality. FAct is he was a GW supporter, and while that was trndy gopt elected. Now its not, and he stcuk to heis GW stance, he got sacked.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Thanks god for a bit of sanity at last. I was worried for a while that our so called leaders might actually take AGW seriously. I always hoped they could see through it, and now it is apparent they do.
You know, you continuously insult the AGW crowd for jumping on a bandwagon without sufficient proof, but you're doing the same thing on your side of the fence. You've already decided what you want the answer to be, and you assume that anyone who thinks otherwise is a scam artist. Try thinking like a real scientist. Keep your mind open to either possibility, and let the facts point the way. I know your instinctive response to this will be to prattle on about how X temperature in Y region hasn't risen in the past Z years, but for every report like that, there's another one that points out the opposite. Next, you'll attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC group, which distracts attention away from other scientists who have come to similar conclusions as them. Then you'll start trying to oversimplify the problem by applying what you learned in high school about absorption spectrums, without taking into account the structure of the atmosphere, its circulation patterns, and the different positive and negative feedback cycles which modify every effect. If your point is that we shouldn't be making far-reaching policies because we don't know the answer yet, then I do agree with you (Though I think a push for renewable energy is still needed for other reasons). If you're against any "green" movement simply because you hate the entire concept of "AGW," then I think you're just as closed-minded as the alarmists.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You're looking for consistency in him, and others, that isn't there. People maybe able to think logically because of some rules like in programming, but most fail to apply it to most as much of their life as possible. Taking a scientific, logical approach to all aspects of a person's life can lead to a complete upheaval of currently held beliefs. Besides knowing that money and selfish desires are what motivate people the most; the existence of AGW doesn't matter. People won't do anything about it until it is an overwhelming problem that cannot be avoided any longer. World dependence on oil is a good example, but that's just my opinion. That dependence is almost at it's limit and the price of it beyond dollars and sense is becoming more and more apparent as oil spills into the gulf and other places around the world. Given humanity's propensity at screwing up you'd think we'd have learned by now, but since lives aren't worth dollars and sense loosing them or any other form of life in the process of progress seems to be unimportant or worthless. Until either our country or enough countries have the resolve to stop doing something and start doing something more responsible and respectful then it will not occur. Regardless of the rabble rousing around here, the political will for our leaders to do anything comes from the citizens that elect them. Whether or not anyone here wants to admit it or not their corruptness is our own. We elect what represents us and the only reason we don't like them is because we don't like what we see in ourselves. The excuse so often given about the lack of competence and honesty of our politicians is that it's the fault of the system and that we'd can't do anything about it. End of rant. :|
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Actually, no he didn't. He was sacked by his party because they were of the opinion he'd not win another election. The promise of signing Kyoto was a large part of the reason he was elected.
Well, thats a matter of causality. FAct is he was a GW supporter, and while that was trndy gopt elected. Now its not, and he stcuk to heis GW stance, he got sacked.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Well, thats a matter of causality. FAct is he was a GW supporter, and while that was trndy gopt elected. Now its not, and he stcuk to heis GW stance, he got sacked.
Do you know anything about the person that replaced him? Do you know its likely the fucking greens will get far more seats at the next election because he was such a tool? You really are an ignorant little fucker.
-
You're looking for consistency in him, and others, that isn't there. People maybe able to think logically because of some rules like in programming, but most fail to apply it to most as much of their life as possible. Taking a scientific, logical approach to all aspects of a person's life can lead to a complete upheaval of currently held beliefs. Besides knowing that money and selfish desires are what motivate people the most; the existence of AGW doesn't matter. People won't do anything about it until it is an overwhelming problem that cannot be avoided any longer. World dependence on oil is a good example, but that's just my opinion. That dependence is almost at it's limit and the price of it beyond dollars and sense is becoming more and more apparent as oil spills into the gulf and other places around the world. Given humanity's propensity at screwing up you'd think we'd have learned by now, but since lives aren't worth dollars and sense loosing them or any other form of life in the process of progress seems to be unimportant or worthless. Until either our country or enough countries have the resolve to stop doing something and start doing something more responsible and respectful then it will not occur. Regardless of the rabble rousing around here, the political will for our leaders to do anything comes from the citizens that elect them. Whether or not anyone here wants to admit it or not their corruptness is our own. We elect what represents us and the only reason we don't like them is because we don't like what we see in ourselves. The excuse so often given about the lack of competence and honesty of our politicians is that it's the fault of the system and that we'd can't do anything about it. End of rant. :|
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
He's avoiding my post anyway. The funny thing is that the more he posts about AGW being a scam, and the more he tries to support his side by quoting individuals and incredibly-biased reporters, the more I'm driven away from his side. Maybe he's actually been planted by the "alarmists" to make the anti-AGW side look like a bunch of amateurs and fools. Just like CSS is probably a government spy, trying to make the conspiracy nuts look like fools! It all makes perfect sense! :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Thanks god for a bit of sanity at last. I was worried for a while that our so called leaders might actually take AGW seriously. I always hoped they could see through it, and now it is apparent they do.
You know, you continuously insult the AGW crowd for jumping on a bandwagon without sufficient proof, but you're doing the same thing on your side of the fence. You've already decided what you want the answer to be, and you assume that anyone who thinks otherwise is a scam artist. Try thinking like a real scientist. Keep your mind open to either possibility, and let the facts point the way. I know your instinctive response to this will be to prattle on about how X temperature in Y region hasn't risen in the past Z years, but for every report like that, there's another one that points out the opposite. Next, you'll attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC group, which distracts attention away from other scientists who have come to similar conclusions as them. Then you'll start trying to oversimplify the problem by applying what you learned in high school about absorption spectrums, without taking into account the structure of the atmosphere, its circulation patterns, and the different positive and negative feedback cycles which modify every effect. If your point is that we shouldn't be making far-reaching policies because we don't know the answer yet, then I do agree with you (Though I think a push for renewable energy is still needed for other reasons). If you're against any "green" movement simply because you hate the entire concept of "AGW," then I think you're just as closed-minded as the alarmists.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
You've already decided what you want the answer to be, and you assume that anyone who thinks otherwise is a scam artist.
No, I have already SEEN what the REALITY is. It has been there for at least three or four years now. Its called the complete detachment of rel temperatures from the model predictions. Since those models are built based on the theory of AGW, a departure as dramatic as this reftes the theory. Its clear simple science. The ONLY people with preconceived ideas are the scientists who support AGW and attempt to prove it no, matter what the data says: 1) Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same. 6) When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science! And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issues are not being given sufficient attention.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscrip
-
He's avoiding my post anyway. The funny thing is that the more he posts about AGW being a scam, and the more he tries to support his side by quoting individuals and incredibly-biased reporters, the more I'm driven away from his side. Maybe he's actually been planted by the "alarmists" to make the anti-AGW side look like a bunch of amateurs and fools. Just like CSS is probably a government spy, trying to make the conspiracy nuts look like fools! It all makes perfect sense! :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
He's avoiding my post anyway.
Wrong, just too busy to waste too much time with people like you.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the more he tries to support his side by quoting individuals and incredibly-biased reporters
When have I ever quoted a reporter (apart from linking to an article that might quote the original source). And as for quoting individuals, whats the problem with that? Dont you think scientists as individuals have valid views or do you only accept the views of scientific bodies as valild?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What a thoroughly usefull site! Thanks! And its nice to see AGW is finally getting put on the back burner. Very satisfying. It just shows that people arent as stupid as politicans and certain scientists think. The arrogant bastards.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Actually, the politicians are far from stupid. They just ride whatever wave will get them the most votes. Case in point: at dinner some years back my wife challenged the MP (now a minister) on child benefit saying that it was ridiculous to give everyone child benefit when, clearly, large numbers of people didn't need it. His response was that it would lose votes to do so. Seems they may be changing their tune now!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
You're looking for consistency in him, and others, that isn't there. People maybe able to think logically because of some rules like in programming, but most fail to apply it to most as much of their life as possible. Taking a scientific, logical approach to all aspects of a person's life can lead to a complete upheaval of currently held beliefs. Besides knowing that money and selfish desires are what motivate people the most; the existence of AGW doesn't matter. People won't do anything about it until it is an overwhelming problem that cannot be avoided any longer. World dependence on oil is a good example, but that's just my opinion. That dependence is almost at it's limit and the price of it beyond dollars and sense is becoming more and more apparent as oil spills into the gulf and other places around the world. Given humanity's propensity at screwing up you'd think we'd have learned by now, but since lives aren't worth dollars and sense loosing them or any other form of life in the process of progress seems to be unimportant or worthless. Until either our country or enough countries have the resolve to stop doing something and start doing something more responsible and respectful then it will not occur. Regardless of the rabble rousing around here, the political will for our leaders to do anything comes from the citizens that elect them. Whether or not anyone here wants to admit it or not their corruptness is our own. We elect what represents us and the only reason we don't like them is because we don't like what we see in ourselves. The excuse so often given about the lack of competence and honesty of our politicians is that it's the fault of the system and that we'd can't do anything about it. End of rant. :|
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Sure, just accuse everyone who disagree with you of being blinkered. Classic state of self dellusion. Well, when you grow up, and the world has got over the AGW fiasco, you will realise what a fool you were to buy into it. In the meantime have a good, or even unhappy, gnashing of teeth at all the problems in the world you have to solve.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
As we all knew many governments spouted GWisms just to get the green votes, and then actually did nothing. Well, it seems either the green vote was so small, or those voters have turned because now major world governments are finally waking up to the fact that support for GW policies are almost non existant, and, unnecessary: "Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism." http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1182-green-catastrophism-collapses.html[^] Thanks god for a bit of sanity at last. I was worried for a while that our so called leaders might actually take AGW seriously. I always hoped they could see through it, and now it is apparent they do. Not that I am against renewable energy, and the industry and jobs it creates, on the contrary, I am very much in favour. But AGW alarmism has not only damaged the world of science, it has also damaged the world of renewable energy. Reasonable people will for decades when presented with the words 'science' or 'renewable' always start to laugh, remembering the ridiculaous scam called AGW that so abused these words their value became derrided to the point of worthlessness. And that, is a shame. On a global scale.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
And I still believe that we as humans need to be more aware that we need have a more sustainable way of living and a better way to interact with nature, if we manage to destroy all the forests something is going to happen, we don't have unlimited amounts of oil
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You've already decided what you want the answer to be, and you assume that anyone who thinks otherwise is a scam artist.
No, I have already SEEN what the REALITY is. It has been there for at least three or four years now. Its called the complete detachment of rel temperatures from the model predictions. Since those models are built based on the theory of AGW, a departure as dramatic as this reftes the theory. Its clear simple science. The ONLY people with preconceived ideas are the scientists who support AGW and attempt to prove it no, matter what the data says: 1) Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same. 6) When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science! And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issues are not being given sufficient attention.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscrip
fat_boy wrote:
- Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same.
I think we've been through a lot of this. Some of it was likely due to mistakes or researchers taking shortcuts. Some of it was due to a lack of more detailed numbers, or distrust of certain readings. Some of it was sound reasoning, but has been misinterpreted by the public and spun by the other side.
fat_boy wrote:
- When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science!
And like I said, you're trying to attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC researchers, as if that was the only study that supports the AGW theory. You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate. I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issu
-
fat_boy wrote:
Well, thats a matter of causality. FAct is he was a GW supporter, and while that was trndy gopt elected. Now its not, and he stcuk to heis GW stance, he got sacked.
Do you know anything about the person that replaced him? Do you know its likely the fucking greens will get far more seats at the next election because he was such a tool? You really are an ignorant little fucker.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
You really are an ignorant little f***er.
Wow, who rattled your cage today?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: You really are an ignorant little f***er. Wow, who rattled your cage today?
Oh come on. You know damn well you're acting like a prick because you enjoy getting a rise so there you go. Truth be told I was baiting you with my original reply about Rudd anyway, I knew the assumption you'd draw and I knew you'd jump in without verifying it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
- Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same.
I think we've been through a lot of this. Some of it was likely due to mistakes or researchers taking shortcuts. Some of it was due to a lack of more detailed numbers, or distrust of certain readings. Some of it was sound reasoning, but has been misinterpreted by the public and spun by the other side.
fat_boy wrote:
- When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science!
And like I said, you're trying to attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC researchers, as if that was the only study that supports the AGW theory. You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate. I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issu
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you to support the AGW theory, as I'm undecided on it myself. The point is that you can't just decide what the answer is, and then scream at the top of your lungs about only the reports that agree with you. That's not science.
Fair point though I would say that the rhetoric from both sides is almost identical in it's vehemence and denunciation of the other side. There does not appear to be any absolutely compelling evidence from either side and, as someone who has been around the block a few times, I've heard it all before (so to speak) so find it very difficult to take seriously while both sides fight like playground bullies. Everyone is just pointing fingers and throwing meaningless insults around which doesn't help anyone. I'd much rather see all of the scientists, et al, come out and say 'we're not sure so we'll keep looking and listen to all sides' whilst, at the same time, promoting ways to reduce energy usage, etc., as a means by which we all save money and help to make what resources we have last longer. However, the other side to that is that there are many countries (notably China and India) that are becoming powerful industrialized nations that want what we've (who can blame them?) had and are, seemingly, happy to turn a blind eye to pollution and the environment to get it. Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages, and so on and so on. I guess the problem becomes: which issue do we/can we address with any hope of success and if we pick one what happens to the others?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you to support the AGW theory, as I'm undecided on it myself. The point is that you can't just decide what the answer is, and then scream at the top of your lungs about only the reports that agree with you. That's not science.
Fair point though I would say that the rhetoric from both sides is almost identical in it's vehemence and denunciation of the other side. There does not appear to be any absolutely compelling evidence from either side and, as someone who has been around the block a few times, I've heard it all before (so to speak) so find it very difficult to take seriously while both sides fight like playground bullies. Everyone is just pointing fingers and throwing meaningless insults around which doesn't help anyone. I'd much rather see all of the scientists, et al, come out and say 'we're not sure so we'll keep looking and listen to all sides' whilst, at the same time, promoting ways to reduce energy usage, etc., as a means by which we all save money and help to make what resources we have last longer. However, the other side to that is that there are many countries (notably China and India) that are becoming powerful industrialized nations that want what we've (who can blame them?) had and are, seemingly, happy to turn a blind eye to pollution and the environment to get it. Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages, and so on and so on. I guess the problem becomes: which issue do we/can we address with any hope of success and if we pick one what happens to the others?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Well said. :thumbsup:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)