The thing I find interesting is this, you prefer to believe the sun is the cause, based upon the work of a Russian scientist and and others. Climate researchers in the US have studied the correlation between the sun's output and earth temperatures. They concluded there is a very small effect and does not account for the magnitude of the the change here.[/COLOR]
Please cite article. And by whom. I believe the russian scientists represent a much more unbiased scientific research opinion, than the UK climate scientist now. After email releases.
Just offering up what I consider a more unbiased scientific study other than what comes out of the IPCC. Which to my knowledge has never even hinted to the fact than the sun warms the planet. Same with the post about the extensive work by Henrik Svensmark. The IPCC flat turned him down to present his findings.
Okay, we have two opposing scientific views. In broad terms, either they are both wrong or one is wrong and the other is right. By what criteria do you decide to favor the Russian scientist? It certainly isn't your or, anyone else's on this forum, long experience as a climate researcher that would allow you to make such a choice with any validity. [/COLOR]
I consider them more opinons, although I do have engineering and scientific training. Over 40 years worth. Patents also. What are yours?
Neither are wrong, my impression is that some believe that humans are totally responsible for the earth heating up, and others want to understand it more fully by asking questions such as, "If the earth is heating up, are the other planets warming also? Why? Is the heating the same? Do we have to ask an astrophysicist, rather than a greenhouse gas chemist? What role does water vapor play? How is that created? By the greenhouse effect, or another mechanism? Cosmic rays?
In plain words, I believe you are biased. No amount of rational presentation of facts will ever sway the opinion of a biased person. In fact, a biased person won't even acknowledge others may have valid points. Well, that makes for a fun day on the forum don't it?
That is completely false. I am just more open minded, better read, and ask more questions, to find the full truth. Not just what I'm told by the media, or Al Gore with his falsehood movie.
Now, I know someone will tell me about the boys in the UK fibbing and that all the scientist's in the US are part of a plot to get rich and so forth. I don't buy it. You want to disparage the work of climate scientists around the world due to emails in the UK? If you think about it, that isn't likely and it certainly isn't the way you would hope others to treat you in similar circumstances. In fact, if they did so, you would be outraged.
I can never remember scientist ever being questioned about their integrity. In my long life, usually what they say is completely unbiased. They are after the truth, and nothing but the truth. Like Jack Webb. Purposely destroying data, "tricking data" to show what they want the final outcome to be is undermineing the work, and calling into question the work of all climate scientist. Are they doing this for glory? Larger staffs, bigger research facilities? Personal profit? Why? What is the motive to destroy data, trick data? It is a sad day for them. As Hannibal said "look for what people covet". There you will find their motives.
Clearly for some people in this discussion, the most important outcome is that Al Gore is wrong. Your like or dislike of Al Gore won't change the earth's temperature by one bit, nor, as you assume he is just getting rich, will the amount of money in Al's bank account change the temperature. Please, get off the Al Gore routine, it's boring.
Al Gore is no scientist, but has self appointed himself as a spokesperson, spreading fear, and looking to profit from fear mongering. I'll never stop calling his bluff, and neither should you.
It would be nice if Eddie could acknowledge that windpower has a real, working place in the energy arena, I gave a good reference to check out. Nothing hypothetical about it. You can see 'em and touch 'em. But, if he wishes to believe that windpower is only just another taxpayer robbing scam that doesn't work, it's a free country. Those turbines will be producing megawatts of power whether Eddie believes in them or not. It does work, its working around the globe. Even in China they are implementing wind power as fast as possible. There are several core reasons it is an attractive energy resource.
I think wind power is a viable source of power. What Eddie is bringing out is, where is the breakeven point of windpower. It's not when electrons start to flow down the wire to the grid.There has been huge amounts of energy expended to build this wind machine. From exploration of the ore to mine. Processing the ore, manufacturing the wind machine, transportation to the site, etc. Choosing a site, getting permission to erect a wind tower, etc. So how much is expended? And where is the break even point? 2 years later? 5 years later? How about maintanence cost? Can you smelt iron ore with wind power? Can you smelt iron ore with solar power? These energy producing sources have there place, but at what cost? And what break even point? It has it's place.
Eddie said windmill technology is not good enough to justify having them, I would have to call that a fib. Applying Eddie's standards to himself, then I guess I can't believe anything Eddie has ever said. And now that he's lost my trust, I can't believe anything he ever will say.
Informed persons are not fibbers. They may have a different point of view, but to infer that Eddie is fibbing about a subject is possibly a closed mind approach and very small thinking. Eddie is just asking the question. "Where is the break even point? How much energy are we going to get from this source?" Eddie may have a greater intellect, bigger picture of the world, deeper depth of thinking about things, more inquisitive mind. Better read on these subjects. Higher level of creativity.
The point I am making, maybe in a harsh way, we can all be wrong on many issues. None of us drew ice core samples, we didn't slice up coral, we didn't interpret satelite data, we didn't study rock strata, or dig in peat bogs. We did nothing. We wouldn't know how to do those things. Yet, we are all experts on other people's work. That's pretty sad.
Not harsh, just maybe not as well informed, and not questioning others motives for propergating onto the America public a possible theory that we are somehow altering the earth's temperture soley, without any other unimaginalble mechanisms causing the global temperture rise. Such as the cosmic ray theory, the water vapor theory, the sun's output changeing, termites farting, and Al Gore's huge consumption of energy in Tenn. for heating his pool. Proposing a falsehood to profit from it? What's up with that?
Maybe stubborn, blind adherence to biased positions is why other people don't join in. I know it doesn't make for a very good discussion.
Dave.[/QUOTE]
We are sharing opinons, and informing them that there are many avenues to viewing this climate change in a broader sense of thinking about it. It is a time for learning.
