Climate Change Discussion

[SPYDERLK]

People have been saying this since Paul Erhlich, who forecast this same apocalypse would happen by 1975 or 1980.

Its looking like he was a few years off. And changes have been made that have reduced the effect he foresaw. But the improvements are not keeping abreast of the problems caused by the increasing population pressure.

 

[Tig]

Here is the website for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The report should be posted there at some point.

Long Island has two weather reporting ground hogs? Is that in case thingy spots one and shoots it?

 

[riptides]

A Necessary Apocalypse

We have finite resources. Last I checked, there is ONE planet Earth. Your point is???

-Mike Z.

 

[Doc_Bob]

Global warming is happening. Global warming is not the direct result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels. This episode of global warming is identical to the ones we have been having for eons and occurs all the time in a cyclic manner unrelated to mankind’s presence or activities.

The real question is if global warming is to be feared, why do we fear something that has happened for thousands of years? Will Wisconsin be "worse' if it is 3 degrees warmer? Today it was around 0 degrees. This weekend it will be -4 degrees.

22 years ago the “ice age” was all the rage. All the same experts who were telling me about the ice age are now on the global warming craze. Good for them.
Bob

 

[MikePA]

We have finite resources. Last I checked, there is ONE planet Earth. Your point is???

Lots of things are finite. What's your point?

Just because someone called a scientist (or scientists) guess at the cause of global warming doesn't mean it's science.

1. Observe
2. Develop an hypothesis why
3. Create an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

They've observed and they have an hypothesis. Because they've failed with Step 3, they're reverted to scare tactics.

100s of years ago 'a consensus of scientists' thought the earth was flat and they sought to silence anyone who disagreed with them. The same thing is happening today, e.g., Dr. (scientist) Heidi Cullen of the WeatherChannel suggesting that any weather person who disagrees should have their AMS certification revoked. When you can not prove (Step 3), silence those who disagree.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Lots of things are finite. What's your point?

Just because someone called a scientist (or scientists) guess at the cause of global warming doesn't mean it's science.

1. Observe
2. Develop an hypothesis why
3. Create an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

They've observed and they have an hypothesis. Because they've failed with Step 3, they're reverted to scare tactics.

100s of years ago 'a consensus of scientists' thought the earth was flat and they sought to silence anyone who disagreed with them. The same thing is happening today, e.g., Dr. (scientist) Heidi Cullen of the WeatherChannel suggesting that any weather person who disagrees should have their AMS certification revoked. When you can not prove (Step 3), silence those who disagree.

your #3 highlights his point. How should we experiment? Seems like what we are doing is already proving it. Just not fast enuf to be sure its us. I would feel is better to figure out how to slow it down to show its us than just doing what we are doing more so as to speed it up to show its us.
Larry

 

[riptides]

Lots of things are finite. What's your point?

Simple. You trash it, you clean it up.

Just because someone called a scientist (or scientists) guess at the cause of global warming doesn't mean it's science.

1. Observe
2. Develop an hypothesis why
3. Create an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

They've observed and they have an hypothesis. Because they've failed with Step 3, they're reverted to scare tactics..

Eh? Daily habits by ordinary people prove we put more noxious gases and pollutants into the atmosphere.

Did you see in the report the samples of ice cores dating back 10,ooo years that show the C02 levels?

And I believe numerous computer models from different countries and minds all come to the same conclusion. Or is this degenerating into a conspiracy of the environmental movement too?

-Mike Z.

 

[BTDT]

In the original telling, the men of Sodom "were wicked, such sinners against the Lord, He decided to destroy them." For the people of the land, there was no escape, as the Lord "rained down fire and brimstone . . . He destroyed everyone living there and everything growing in the ground."

Fire and brimstone, now there's some global warming for you.

 

[N80]

I am curious how many people actually read the report before formulation of their opinions? Or are some of you just so learned in your ways that newer scientific data and modeling is dismissed?

Which side are you addressing?

Seriously, we don't have the report. What we do have is the news (the report about the report) of a bunch of like-minded scientists slapping themselves on the back for discovering the word 'very' and ranting about the apocolypse like streetcorner prophets because they all agreed on something that they had made their minds up about years ago. So it is really unfair to say we are prejudging when the actors have come out of the theater and told us the ending! Give me a break.

The operative word here is hubris. It is the original sin. We not only think we can change the climate but we have the brazen audacity to suggest we can change it back! To ice that cake we are going to make this effort in order to preserve and continue a world society/culture that almost no one anywhere would describe as truly good. Think about it.

Maybe we need a change.

 

[MikePA]

Simple. You trash it, you clean it up.

We (US) do clean it up. Eight of the top 10 most polluted cities are in the former Soviet Union. Get them to clean it up.

Eh? Daily habits by ordinary people prove we put more noxious gases and pollutants into the atmosphere. Did you see in the report the samples of ice cores dating back 10,ooo years that show the C02 levels? And I believe numerous computer models from different countries and minds all come to the same conclusion. Or is this degenerating into a conspiracy of the environmental movement too?

Simulations are not proof, they require all sorts of assumptions to be fed into a model. These same scientists write a model that proves their point. Imagine that. And read my last post. Leading scientists of 100s of years ago thought the earth was flat. Consensus is not science and it's not proof. If it were, the earth would be flat.

If you believe it, great for you. If you want to change your lifestyle based on this belief, great for you. Just don't make me believe through laws passed by the state and federal governments.