To do nothing about climate change a crime
Isn’t it hypocritical that the U.S. endorsed the color-coded terror alert system that blatantly manipulated the fears of the American public while the much bigger threat to all human survival and quality of life, climate change, is virtually ignored?
I was embarrassed and distressed that the U.S. government successfully softened the language of the international climate change report; I continue to be baffled that President Bush refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol. If we continue to put short-term consumerist priorities ahead of long-term human welfare, we will be committing a greater injustice than I have ever read about in any history book — not only because of the scope of the issue and the fact that all will (and are) suffering, and not only because it is predicted that the poor of the world will suffer most, but also because we already have the scientific knowledge of the causes and effects of climate change.
We know exactly what we are doing to the planet and ourselves, and we also know how we can correct it. To do nothing at this time would be the greatest crime imaginable.
Leslie Titheridge, Denver
gee you are upset that Bush didn't sign the kyoto, destroy America and let the third world do as they want, protocol.
were you just as upset but forgot to mention the the clinton algore pair didnt sign it either?
leslie you should go to to some of the places that are exempt from the list in the kyoto and see how they are protecting your enviornment. please start by going to Mumbai, India and if you can stand the smell of the air and the pollution you will understand by no American president has signed the lets screw America document. After that try China, or Mexico City, or Venezuela.
what the USA should do is just buy carbon credits from algore and then it would be a ok in algores eyes
Leslie is the worst kind of left wing liberal (which I know I am assuming). She makes no reference to the untold 10s (100s?) of MILLIONS who have died from tyranny, dictatorships, communism, famine, plague, pestilence, and the current crop of Islamo terrorists. Not ONE reference at all. But she is so eager and willing to declare the "theory" of manmade global warming as the "greatest crime imaginable". Probably out protesting when she should have been in history class!!!
Leslie - how many have died from this "global warming" theory to date?? Not how many MIGHT or COULD die - because that don't count as this is still unproven and debateable regardles of what you may think.
I remeber those same words. We must do something NOW. The professors and scientist in the 70's were so sure. We need to spend $$$$$$ now to stop this clobal threat. Or those glaciers will be at the Canadian border by the year 2000.
Posted by FW on May 8, 2007 06:48 AMHey FW - good point. And maybe the Earth isn't round, as the Hollywood liberals and other falming lefties insist it is. I well recall that when Columbus sailed, many thought he would fall off the end of the flat Earth. Earth round or flat?? the debate rages....
Posted by Liam on May 8, 2007 07:24 AMSomeone too embarrassed to leave a name said:
"Were you just as upset but forgot to mention the the clinton algore pair didnt sign it either?"
Ahh yes, the familiar "Yes we're idiots but Clinton and Gore were idiots too!" defense for inaction.
Well played, well, played...
Posted by Charles B on May 8, 2007 07:39 AMLiam
Don't forget the scientific consensus PROVED that the correct answer was flat!
Posted by momma y on May 8, 2007 07:39 AMHere we go again! More global warming. We need to do something!!! HELP, THE SKY IS FALLING screamed chicken little...
You got me in a bit of a mood this morning. So, what would Leslie have us do? Seriously. Shall we all buy carbon offset credits? Would that make her feel better? And are we even technologically advanced enough to do so? Because there is NO WAY to get near enough supply from renewable energy. So instead, maybe in Leslie's world, we should spend DOUBLE or more for our energy, one to pay for the resources now, and again to pay to offset those resources (I still don't get how that works, but whatever).
And, just for a moment, let' us imagine Leslie's utopia. The US goes 100% to renewable energy by the end of the year. 100%. Never mind the cost associated with that. The only Carbon Dioxide that is produced is through nature. We still must eat right? Agriculture is responsible for the majority of nitrogen (a much more influenced "greenhouse gas"). So now we stop agriculture 100%. We have no food, but clean cool air, so that must be good.
Now we look at the rest of the world. China, India, the middle east. China says to heck with the United States, we want to be a world player, and with the US going renewable, we'll be happy to take those manufacturing jobs, and energy jobs, and so what if our carbon dioxide output is 50 times greater than the US ever was. So China become dominant, because, well they have no competition and 2 BILLION people.
Do you see the problem Leslie? And that would be a best case scenario. All this with the assumption that:
1. Global Warming is caused by humans
2. Carbon dioxide is the main cause
3. There is really something we can do about it
4. If the United States changes policy the rest of the world will too
5. Changing policy will have zero effect on the economy
I haven't even spoken about the instability this would create in the middle east (a very real problem). Imagine the world goes to 100% renewable energy. THE WORLD. What happens to Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, not to mention Russia and the United States (two other LARGE exporters of oil and natural gas). In the desert, there will be no agriculture, no infrastructure for advanced technology, nothing to drive the middle east economy at all. You want to see poor or fanatical people? Take away the only money they have and see what happens to the world. North Korea has not had an economy for 30 years. What did they do? THEY BUILT A F'N BOMB!!!
I am too tired to debate the science of Global Warming. I have done so too many times in the last few weeks. So let's look at what really could and would happen, if we chose to live in Leslie's small little world, that has no outside influence.
If you really are concerned about Global Warming, don't have the government be your guide. Do something for yourself. Reuse and recycle, use public transportation, buy a hybrid, grow your own vegetables, if buying carbon credits make you feel better, do that. Put up solar panels on your house. Don't run your air conditioner and sweat all summer. Don't flush your toilet so you can conserve water. Whatever you want to do, you are free to do on your own. Make a donation to greenpeace. Whatever. But please, don't come on this board, or write a letter that is so ignorant that it is laughable at best, and scary and sad at worst.
Again, you got me on a bad morning. But look at the real big picture, do your research, study what the climatologists are saying, get off the IPCC teat, and lead by example if this is really your cause.
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 08:51 AMMichael - famine, plague, pestilence - global warming will exacerbate all of these. And, perhaps you should have paid more attention when your science teacher discussed what a theory is. You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis. A hypothesis is a possible explanation, still to be tested. A theory is a scientific explanation based on testing & observation & has a myriad of empirical evidence to support it.
5:36 - Gee, is that how we're going to roll - It stinks in India, so why should the US be a world leader? We've been handed one of the finest opportunities in a generation - we should show the rest of world what we're made of. People say we've lost our nerve, the west is in decline. I say we embrace the future, make the sacrifices required of us, and once again be world leaders.
At least when Leslie's grandchildren ask her what she did to help she'll have something positive to say. What will you say, Michael & 5:36?
Posted by Pamela on May 8, 2007 09:11 AMGeez Dan, take a breath, or your meds, or whatever gets you by. Obviously the problem is big. The agricultural nitrogen you tout is a cycle - it gets used in the same amount it is produced, so that is a wash.
How can investing in new technologies and thereby producing thousands of good jobs be bad? Worried about China & India - you better be - especially if we keep to business as usual, let's jump into the 20th century and we find ourselves buying 21st century technology from them.
Posted by Pamela on May 8, 2007 09:20 AMWhen I see the folks deriding GW, I wonder where they are getting their information from, and what path led them to that source.
What possible reason could they have to ignore bodies like the IPCC, NAS, the AAAS, the American Meteorological Society, and so many others who all support the position of anthropogenic GW?
Either they know better, or it is an ideological commitment that disallows them to accept GW.
If they know better, then where are they getting their information if not these bodies?
Do they have their own research programs, that overshadow in size and scope those of the all the researchers being reported and summated by the bodies?
Do they have access to research groups not represented by the bodies, if so, how is it possible that thousands of highly funded research projects have systematically escaped the attention of the scientific journals?
The only reasonable conclusion if this were true, would be that there was a conspiracy amongst all the worlds scientific institutions and journals in a scale that was unprecedented in human history.
That leaves ideological distaste.
I poorly understand what would be doing this, and perhaps Dan, Michael, etc would like to explain.
Is it because Gore backs it and you find it distastefull to back anything he backs?
Is it a religious thing?
Is it about individuality?
?
Pamela,
I read your previous post and found it, well rather elementary. Did you re-read it before you posted?
You stated "famine, plague, pestilence - global warming will exacerbate all of these"
What are you basing that on? I would seriously like to know.
Then you stated, "A hypothesis is a possible explanation, still to be tested. A theory is a scientific explanation based on testing & observation & has a myriad of empirical evidence to support it."
If you would read The International Journal of Climatology, you would see that there are several theories on Climate Change. From radiated sun surges, to natural cycles of the earth, to heat trapped by water vapor in the stratosphere. Paleoclimatologists believe that carbon dioxide is an effect of the heating of water due to solar radiation, and may be off by as much as 800 years (median), based on ice core data. IPCC working group I uses one graph, called the Hockey Stick Graph, instead of collected physical data. The IPCC also does not conduct any research, nor does it evaluate relevant research - from the IPCC about page.
Finally, from your second post:
"The agricultural nitrogen you tout is a cycle - it gets used in the same amount it is produced, so that is a wash."
Where do you get your information from? Do you make things up to attempt to prove a misinformed point? And if you think that agricultural nitrogen is a cycle, why wouldn't carbon dioxide also be a cycle?
Like I wrote a couple of times in my post, I was in a mood this morning. But instead of having a researched counter point to my case, you instead chose to make a comment on what you perceived to be my 'passion' regarding climate change. Your failure to (from observation based on your two posts) comprehend global economy, history, and science, the effect of forced negative change on the global economy, and the infrastructure of such, as well as an over all look at all the scientific evidence, makes it hard for someone researching this topic to buy into your theory of human inducted catastrophic global warming.
I have done the research of the science. I have studied the economic impact of an "Al Gore" scenario, and I agree with the 18,000 physical scientists that signed what is called the 'Oregon Petition' that asks the United States not to ratify Kyoto. I continue to research the States that have ratified Kyoto and Italy is now looking to back out of Kyoto because not only are the requirements unachievable, but would be too costly to be forced to implement (from the COP-10 summit).
Pamela, do some research for yourself. Purchase a subscription to The International Journal of Climatology and read what the climatologists are really saying about Global Warming, not what is hand picked for the IPCC whose mission is to: "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature."
Read that statement again. "BASIS OF HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE" and "THE IPCC DOES NOT CARRY OUT RESEARCH NOR DOES IT MONITOR CLIMATE RELATED DATA OR OTHER RELEVANT PARAMETERS."
Do me a favor, and think back to what then Vice President Gore said "I would be all right with gasoline prices at $4 per gallon or higher... Look at our friends in Great Brittan..." We are on the way to that now." (from the 1999 second Presidential debate with then Gov. Bush). Look at who is releasing a lot of the information regarding HIGW (human induced global warming). Greenpeace (formerly an anti atomic energy group, now going after fossil fuels). There is too much data to not pay attention to.
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 10:01 AMSpud,
You know where I get my information from. The climatologists. You also know that AAS and NAS are political organizations themselves and are not directly tied to climatology specifically. They rely on funding sources and to get those sources the topic of the day is human induced global warming due to carbon dioxide. You know this. You also know that the IPCC is not a research institute, but a political body to demonstrate human induced global climate change. These are not disputed facts. There is SO much money out there currently for research for every scientist, be they ecologists, biologists, chemists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, you name it, anyone that is looking for funding knows that they can get it with Global Warming. This is not news. This is politics, and the NAS and AAS are playing the political game right now for funding. Nothing more, nothing less. Why else would NASA weigh in on this topic? Funding.
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 10:07 AMI think Pamela has just seen An Inconvenient (un)Truth one time too many.
Posted by KW on May 8, 2007 10:11 AMSpud,
I had done a response post to let you know I should heed my own advice and re-read before I post. I do know it is the AAAS, not the American Astronomical Society (AAS).
But I have a question for you. Why do you not consult with the experts on this topic? You go to the NAS and AAAS, but do not read the International Journal of Climatology, but instead choose to read 'Science' In that respect, would you read 'Popular Mechanics' to stay abreast on the current topics of engineering? Would you read the AMA Journal when you want to get the most up to date dental practices? Would you even read 'Sports Illustrated' for all relevant baseball topics? Or would you go to the direct publication of those topics? You would go to ASME Publications for issues dealing with Mechanical Engineering, to the American Journal of Dentistry for topics related to dentistry, and Baseball Weekly for information on baseball. Why then do YOU choose not to read from the publication that deals directly with Climatology in regards to theories and study of Global Climate Change?
I have been too verbose today. I'll sit back and enjoy the comments instead, unless someone asks me a direct question.
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 10:40 AMDan,
Not sure why you think either AAAS or NAS are political bodies, or why that would matter in the case of the IPCC which is.
You seem to be edging towards hinting that this is all a big scam pulled off by the world’s scientific bodies. Do you feel that they are all corrupt because they use funding?
(In the case of the AAAS and NAS this would be untrue anyway).
You have not yet summarized all the reports in the journal you have subscribed to, and you haven’t yet to my knowledge made the case that this journal is showing research reports consistently or even significantly disagreeing with NAS, AAAS, IPCC, etc.
Have you reached a point where you are able to summarize the state of the science and what the consensus position is from the papers you are reading?
Spud,
My next post will contain links to the abstract in response to your last post. Because it will be all links, it will take a while to get "approved" by the board at the News. Stay tuned.
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 11:02 AMDan,
just remove the "http://" portion.
That will leave the url in a form that gets treated as plain text.
I can simply copy/paste into a browser.
As to abstracts, that is always interesting, but I haven't the time to wade through dozens of papers in a field other than my own, which is why I use AAAS and NAS to give me a summary of other fields.
What you are really proposing is to do your own summarization - which I think is admirable.
What I am asking from you is to summarize and tell me what you think the consensus the journal is showing by what papers it publishes.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/104520263/ABSTRACT
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/104550294/ABSTRACT
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/104550294/ABSTRACT
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112730867/ABSTRACT
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/94015303/ABSTRACT
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/4771/ABSTRACT
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/89016692/ABSTRACT
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/94015303/ABSTRACT
I can fill up a page or more with just abstract links. Check them out. The full papers are available as well.
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 11:24 AMRead it too late buddy. It will show up in a minute. I think I sent links for 8 - 10 abstracts?
The International Journal does not show a consensus at all. That is my whole problem. There are papers and abstracts that counter anthropogenic climate change theory, as well as support it. That is my point. That there is still debate, that consensus, in my opinion, is not based on scientific evidence, but on politics to acquire funding.
For me, I don't believe in these three points of an "Al Gore" type scenario (as that is really what these forums are discussing):
1. The debate is over
2. Scientific consensus based on IPCC
3. Catastrophic, worst case scenarios (used only for fear and intimidation)
I do understand your position. And the theory behind anthropogenic climate change is one that could prove to be a true possible scenario. But the impact of such and those conclusions is where my problem lies.
So far, there has been no explanation of total saturation effects of carbon dioxide and the impact that total saturation would have. It has always been a climbing scale, without consideration for total saturation, and the physical evidence that total saturation in the stratosphere of CO2 would "max out" the effect of CO2 on climate change.
There has been no historical, nor physical evidence of 22 ft sea level rise in the history of the earth, yet model projections claim this as a worst case scenario.
And I have issue with spending billions, if not trillions just to "do something" just in case, as Ms. Titheridge's letter implores us to do. If this debate (which is really is) helps spur industry change and R&D, then why ratify Kyoto? Why mandate it? If the money is there, the demand is there, and it can be affordable, I am all for it. I do not believe that we are in a position to tax our economy, without the scientific evidence, and the economic ability to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy (without the use of nuclear energy) at this time, because as Ms. Titheridge states, "To do nothing at this time would be the greatest crime imaginable." If we have impacted the climate in less than 50 years, we can change it just as quickly, in theory. We have time. The earth will not implode because of climate change. We will adapt, just as we did with the little ice age, the medieval warming optimum and our current change. Climate change is not new. It is not a problem that needs to be solved. It is part of the history of earth. It is earth's population that will need to adapt to the changes of the earth (very philosophical huh?)
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 11:42 AMHere's my prediction: global warming will get worse, peaking in July or August, and continue until September or maybe October, when the temperatures will cool drastically and then around November or December it will become downright frigid. Then, it will warm again around April or May. Then this cycle will repeat itself.
And I'm not even a scientist!
Posted by shaupeen on May 8, 2007 11:49 AMshaupeen - threadbare joke, oft repeated, very unoriginal. But it is useful in showing how some, like yourself, fail to understand the difference between weather and climate. Ignorance must be bliss.
Posted by Liam on May 8, 2007 11:52 AMDan2, I love when your in a bad mood. You make perfect sense.
" I'm Which You ". Steve Martin- My Blue Heaven.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on May 8, 2007 11:53 AMAnd the forecast for tonight, dark. Continued darkness through the night with a change to widely scattered light in the morning.
And remember, if you don't like the weather, move.
Posted by KW on May 8, 2007 12:20 PMSweet! Nice work KW--someone else with a sense of humor and a nod to Carlin.
Lighten up, Liam. It might help your ulcer. Oh, wait, I just read your 7:24 post...nevermind Liam, just keep being bitter.
Posted by shaupeen on May 8, 2007 12:36 PMPamela,
"famine, plague, pestilence - global warming will exacerbate all of these. And, perhaps you should have paid more attention when your science teacher discussed what a theory is. "
Errr, Pam, you should have studied more science and you would realize that your teacher was blowing smoke.
Warming does not exacerbate famine, plague, and pestilence. Warming would increase crop yield, not decrease it. Plague ( I assume you are citing maleria) has gotten back on its feet by the banning of DTD, not any warming. And Al Gore was absolutely wrong when he spoke of Nairobi was established in a healthy place "above the mosquito line" but is now infested with mosquitoes — naturally, because of global warming. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer.
In fact, the banning of DTD which Rachael Carson did not call for in her book (she realized it was absolutely necessary for maleria control but recommended we use as little as possible). Unfortunately, environment extremists did exactly what they current extremist are doing, going ahead with their unproven supposition. In the case of DTD this has cost the lives of over 20,000,000 people.
Global warming is a fact right now. But the warming we are seeing is in the natural swings we've experienced throughout the history of the planet. And there is a lot of evidence that CO2 is not the primary cause of the warming.
There is global warming going on on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto. CO2 increases do track global warming (as per Al Gore), but it follows it. There is up to an 800 year lag between it first getting warmer and then CO2 increasing. A much stronger argument is that it is the activity of the Sun (sunspots) that causes the change in temperature.
And finally, the enviros don't have a very good track record of their predictions coming any where close to being true. Here are some statements from the first Earth Day:
It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
Dennis Hayes, chief organizer--Earth Day 1
"[A]t least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
PPaul Ehrlich
"By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
PProf. Peter Gunter, North Texas State University
"[A]ir pollution... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."
PPaul Ehrlich
"By the year 2000... there won't be any more crude oil."
EEcologist Kenneth Watt
"[I]n 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary, Smithsonian Institute
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years... the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
Kenneth Watt
There is an old saying that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. In this case as more and more disaster scenarios are laid out by the alarmists, you can say if it sounds too bad to be true, it probably isn't.
So chas b why didnt clinton and go singd
Posted by on May 8, 2007 01:00 PMDan
Some comments.
” The International Journal does not show a consensus at all.”
In a way they do by which papers are selected for publication and which are not, but more to the point, by bypassing NAS, IPCC, AAAS, etc. you are electing to discern the consensus yourself. So you do all the reading, determine what the common underlying view is, and then you know where we stand as far as the current position.
Now your specific points:
1. The debate is over
Depends what you mean. The debate over what the standard position or scientific consensus is indeed over. AGW is it. Whether it remains supportable, or another better position takes over, or whether it is true, is all still open.
2. Scientific consensus based on IPCC
The IPCC reports or represents the consensus, no consensus is based on the IPCC. They are a summation point for discrete research projects and findings. Their job is to report on it in a way that leaders and the public can digest.
3. Catastrophic, worst case scenarios (used only for fear and intimidation)
Well this bit is political. Some cultures seem to only react when fear is stuffed up their shirts. Even so, some of the scenarios really are scary. Like if we reach an increase of over 4 degrees it may trigger the methane trapped under the oceans to gasify, and that could be big trouble.
” There has been no historical, nor physical evidence of 22 ft sea level rise in the history of the earth, yet model projections claim this as a worst case scenario.”
Perhaps so, but then this isn’t a natural cycle. This is an artificial event and may have outcomes that have never before occurred on the planet. Burning fossil fuels, running nuclear plants, and even running wind farms and hydro power is releasing heat and other byproducts that have been stored over billions of years in a very short timescale.
This is not a natural event.
” I have issue with spending billions, if not trillions just to "do something" just in case”
I am told by economists (who are mostly rather right wing) that this is not a problem. They reckon that spending gobs of cash just leads to prosperity for all as the money flows around the economy.
But then these are the same guys that think “supply-side economics” is the best thing since the stockmarket was invented, so I don’t know.
Dr Robert Higgs of the Independant Institute has written an interesting article about scientific findings, funding, and the problems associated when a concensus is formed.
Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea's bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives.Posted by KW on May 8, 2007 01:04 PMThis makes it pretty obvious why those on one side of a scientific issue have to work to prevent opposing opinions from getting much attention. But that’s not all...
shaupeen - nice try, but I don't have an ulcer and I am not bitter. I am however in constant amazement that people can recycle old non-jokes and apparently think they are funny, when the funny part is that the joke shows the ignorance of the one telling it. Climate does not equal weather - learn that and stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted by Liam on May 8, 2007 01:14 PM“ Warming does not exacerbate famine, plague, and pestilence. Warming would increase crop yield, not decrease it”
Ever lived in Nevada, Namibia, Australian Outback, or any other arid climate?
Warming in any place that is already borderline means further reduction of precipitation, higher dehydration of the soil, higher winds, lower crop yields, and higher livestock deaths.
Famine is the outcome.
Warming only increases crop yields where there is:
a. ample water
b. temperate climate
The irrigation requirements increase dramatically as daytime temperature climbs.
Increased irrigation plus increased evaporation equals increased soil salinity.
Salty soil bears less crop.
There are more reasons, but I will stop with those.
Whatever happened to the multi-colored terror alert system that has been pretty much unused and ignored since 2004? It used to be that it would change daily right before the 04 elections, It could not be because the Republicans were trying to manipulate the voters; that would be very cynical of them.
Oh and to the global warming naysayers, I say this: Get over it, global warming is an issue now and your links to articles written by pseudo scientists is not going to make the issue go away. I suggest you concentrate more on denying evolution and getting it removed from all publicly funded institutions. At least with that issue you have a chance.
Spud,"They reckon that spending gobs of cash just leads to prosperity for all as the money flows around the economy."
Pelosi has a plan to "take big oil profits" and use those funds to research alternative energy sources. Now who do you think is going to pay for those profits being taken? We, the consumer, that's who.
In addition, taxes will rise to raise these trillions they claim are needed which will not only hurt the middle class in the wallet but also stifle businesses from growing and perpetuating our current, strong economy.
That's a risk a little to large to gamble on considering the current concensus isn't fact but as Spud puts it: "it's the best info we have to go on right now."
How about getting back to me when you have something a little more concrete to go on.
Spud,
My point 2 is the relationship the IPCC receives to consensus (usually within the media and talking heads of higc proponents). That is what that contention is.
Your counterpoints are valid based on your researched opinion, and here I am happy to agree to disagree with you. We have done our research, and have formed our assessments based on this research. I will continue my research, and maybe someday the preponderance of evidence will indeed support this particular scenario, and at that time I will revise my assessment to concur with the physical evidence collected, but not the range of projections currently being thrust upon the people by the scenario models.
When Greenland was farmed, the oceans did not rise 10 feet. Physical collection of data is beginning to show that global warming change is indeed decreasing since 1999 with hemispherical changes more noticeable (which is why we talk about climate change now, and not global warming), as the southern hemisphere experiences warmth, the northern hemisphere is cooling at a pace that is faster than the warming in the southern hemisphere. Where some areas of the arctic are indeed warming, other areas are cooling. Even in Antarctica, where we see glacial sheering, that is due to the movement of the glaciers and not because of warming, but man is it fantastic video to watch with a tag line underneath (again the uninformed public buying what the media portrays). And there is more snow accumulation in Greenland and Antarctica during the winter months to offset any loss from melting during the summer. This is just fact, based on physical collection of data, and not on future projections.
I am done with this topic. I really am. I sometimes think the Rocky decides to print these because they know that some of us will continue to comment on it. I think it's rather funny sometimes that the original letter writer(s) don't respond to those that offer counterpoints to their original letters. Again, just another example of passion over information.
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 01:27 PMKW, if you disagree, go talk to your Conservative-leaning economists.
As I said, it's their view.
Sean,
Excellent researched and intelligent input. Way to make a point so that even more people actually research what climatologists are saying.
Your talking points alone have convinced me 100% that Global Warming is real, that I should grow my own crops, prepare for the end of the world, buy a life jacket so when the oceans come all the way to Colorado I won't drown, bike to where ever I am going, never fly again, quit my job, because the building uses too much energy, stop reading because you said I should get over it, cancel my subscription to the International Journal of Climatologists (those crazy pseudo scientists climatologists..), put solar panels on my brand new mud hut, never wash or shower again, and sell all my winter clothes!!!
Thanks pal, you saved me!!!
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 01:39 PMHey I am glad I could help. At least now I will not have to read your drivel anymore. Unless of course you hook up your solar cells to a computer with Internet access. Damn, I hope I did not give you any ideas.
Posted by Sean on May 8, 2007 01:44 PMWho are you quoting Spud? I'll check it out but so far you haven't named names.
Posted by KW on May 8, 2007 01:49 PMDrivel huh? Interesting choice of words...
I am sorry for being so sarcastic in my last post. I used it as a weak attempt to make a point and I stooped to a level I usually don't. But again, I am in a bit of a mood today.
I will also apologize for subjecting you to other scientific theories on climate change and it's causes. I don't wish to overload you with facts.
Sean, you see, Spud and I differ on opinion, but we respect each others informed, researched opinion on this subject. I really don't know where you stand on this topic, as you have offered no insight to it, nor have provided a basis for whatever your opinion may be. I may be able to divine that you believe in anthropogenic climate change (or maybe just human induced global warming?) but I can't be sure because you have offered up no evidence in support, no scholarly journals of such evidence, and no intelligent comment regarding this topic. Instead you choose to make asinine comments that people should "get over it" and allude to a conspiracy theory of Republicans (of which I am not a member), and call the worlds climatologists pseudo scientists.
I would think that some form of intelligent discussion should be able to occur between people of liberal thought (or are you not a liberal?), as the definition of liberal is "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. "-websters. But instead, people that don't agree with your thoughts should just shut up and get over it right?
Posted by Dan2 on May 8, 2007 02:26 PMWHAT SAY SUPER SEAN?????
Dan2,
"I am done with this topic."
I hope not, these climate change jousts are the best discussions going on in this forum...
Posted by Charles B on May 8, 2007 10:07 PMBango,
“ Warming does not exacerbate famine, plague, and pestilence. Warming would increase crop yield, not decrease it”
Ever lived in Nevada, Namibia, Australian Outback, or any other arid climate?
Warming in any place that is already borderline means further reduction of precipitation, higher dehydration of the soil, higher winds, lower crop yields, and higher livestock deaths.
Famine is the outcome.
Yes, Bango, you found the places that would be hurt by global warming (borderline), but in the meantime, Siberia (lots of land for crops), etc. get longer growing seasons, more rain, etc. Net effect is prosperity not famine.
Warming weather provides more food, more species (70% of all species live in 3% of the land at the tropics--thank you Planet Earth), and overall a better planet. Of course if the temperature went up to the 170 degrees F. that global warming should put us at right now, that wouldn't work, but generally the temperatures we are talking about on the whole help us.
I mentioned the 170 degrees because we really don't understand all the interactions which make our environment. Since the average temperature on earth is 60 degrees we have a long way to go before we understand what's really happening.
So all those gloom and doom forecasts are by the same type of people that made the forecasts on Earth Day 1 that I quoted.
Posted by Jim on May 9, 2007 02:42 PMHey, environmentalists, liberals and the media have told us that man causes global warming, and that should be good enough. What more proof do we need? In the 1970’s they told us that humans were causing global cooling and we saw how right they were about that. They have now told us we need to change our ways of life to prevent global warming, so we should just go along like good little sheep and follow their strong record of leadership in the field of accurate predictions concerning global climate.
The media and liberals have told us we are loosing the war in Iraq, so therefore it must be true no matter what soldiers, marines and Iraqi citizens say.
The media reported murder, rape and cannibalism in the Super Dome during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, so it must have actually happened. Why should we doubt the media on the global warming issue? Who the heck are we to argue with them?