Fair enough
I am willing to follow the science and observations. I don't have a mindset that each new data or study is an object to be debunked and all climate scientist are liars. How can melting glaciers can be debunked?
Yawn. You're willing to blow with the wind, are you? That's easier than thinking, I suppose. We know, for a fact, that global warming scientists are liars. We have the e-mails to prove it. Why do you dismiss that fact, outright? Glaciers melt. They also freeze, and destroy entire continents. They did it, before mankind; they'll do it, again.
I don't play word games taking cheap shots either. How much play has the terminology 'global warming', 'climate change' gotten? I don't think it's too hard to understand the climate is changing due to long term warming. Or, mention that some scientists have predicted global warming could actually trigger an ice age due to changes in the salinity level/density of the ocean currents. So, right away, some jump on that and say 'ha ha - warming/cooling, got all the bases covered'. Is that really a thoughtful response?
Climate changes. It is always changing. It's been much, much warmer than it is, now, and it's cooler, now, than it was a few years ago. It all depends on where, and when, you measure it. Place a thermometer next to a concrete parking lot, and guess what happens to your readings, all summer long? If "global warming" triggers an ice age, doesn't that defeat all the rhetoric surrounding "global warming", in the first place, and prove that climate is self-correcting? If warming causes cooling, is there really even a problem to address? If mankind is responsible for all "climate change", regardless of direction, or intensity, then there is no solution but to remove mankind from the equation. Does that sound reasonable, to you? Is that a thoughtful response? Maybe, just maybe, we're smart enough to adapt? The world doesn't have to end, just because it's 1.2 degrees warmer in Florida, this summer. Put up an umbrella, and pass the tanning butter.
As to CO2, there are people busy studying how the ocean absorbs CO2 and what that can mean over time. It could be damaging to coral reefs and shellfish is the current hypothesis. That could be big trouble for the ocean food chain. What percentage of the world's population gets most of it's protein from the sea? Whoever says, 'I'll take some more CO2 and be happy'; doesn't know what sort of fire they are playing with, the facts are unknown. Odd that folks will take a stand on such a topic with no basis in fact as to what will happen. Where is the logic in that? There are choices, try to maintain this beautiful earth as it is, or just roll the dice and keep on hoping that we won't cause irreparable harm.
Of course, since we don't know the facts, it could turn out that a little extra CO2 is actually helpful to coral reefs, and shellfish. More likely, it'll be beneficial to the algae and other plant life that actually does the absorbing and feeds the coral reefs and shellfish. That means more O2 for you, and me. Nice how God worked that out, eh? I'll take a big ol' slab of CO2, nature's own plant food! If the facts are unknown, then why do you insist that we panic and immediately change our entire way of life (to the detriment of the global economy, American lifestyles, and the future of our status as a world superpower) about a slight increase in global temperatures (that has already subsided, according to NASA)? Where is the logic in that? The point is: we didn't cause the harm. In fact, short of a massive thermonuclear exchange, it's likely that we cannot cause the harm that's been attributed to us by those who stand to profit from hindering our progress. You seem to keep forgetting that those who are shouting the loudest about global warming are those who have positioned themselves to profit from the situation.
'The science isn't settled' is a telling comment. Science is rarely 'settled' as there is usually something more to learn for just about any topic. Science cannot be treated like a faith if objectivity is to be maintained.
Al Gore says it is, but I agree, completely, with your assessment. Unfortunately, objectivity went the way of the dinosaurs when the global warming scientist started lying to increase their revenue streams. Temptation and greed outweighs truth, again. Jesus is crying.
Climate science is not easy. It's a moving target with many hundreds of variables, some of which are unknown. There is no 'control' earth to compare cause and effect with. The baseline condition is hardly known.
It seems pretty easy: lie in your evaluations to advance your theory while profiting from the sale of carbon credits and getting huge research budgets from governments frightened by your creatively edited fictional movies and your "hockey stick" reporting software that produces the same result, regardless of the input data. Simple. Heck, even a global warming "scientist" could do it.
Now, maybe someone can explain how cheap oil is compared to alternative energy. Or tell me again how alternative energy makes no economic sense. The silence of the deniers on the oil currently gushing into the Gulf is deafening. That is very telling to me. They have a fossil fuel agenda and some of their favorite crows are coming home to roost.
Maybe someone can, when it becomes relevant to the conversation.
It's a shame. We can't change our energy policy overnight, it will take decades, but at least we should be willing to look at the facts.
Dave.
What's a shame is the obfuscation of the facts by those we should be able to trust, and the blindly obedient acceptance of those falsifications by too many who stand to suffer, needlessly. We can change policy every few minutes, but it doesn't change the facts. We have reduced pollution from every source that's been identified as an offender in this battle. The global warming "scientists" still say the Earth is getting warmer (even though they've had to lie about it). Now, instead of saying the Earth is getting warmer because of the greenhouse gases (or the hole in the ozone layer, or whatever it is, today), they say the greenhouse gases are being generated by the increasing heat of the Earth, which is caused by some unknown force.
So, which is it?
At every turn, when the "facts" of global warming are challenged, the story changes to meet the new set of facts. If the winter is colder than normal, it's because of global warming, if the hurricanes are more common, it's because of global warming, if it rains, or if it doesn't rain, it's because of global warming. Every weather event is caused by global warming. If that's truly the case, that all weather is the result of global warming, even though we've reduced the amount of air pollution by 41% since 1990, we've reduced auto emmissions to almost nothing, we've reduced the effluence of coal-powered electrical plants to almost nothing, and we've reduced the pollution in our lakes, rivers and streams to one one-hundredth of what they saw in the 1970s, then maybe, just maybe, global warming has nothing, at all, to do with mankind. Maybe it's just the way things are.
Of course, we now know that it's not the way things are. But, what's a little lie, between friends? Gimme your money!
