NCAAbbs

First, let us take as our premise that the world is warming, that the rate of warming is being accelerated by human beings, and that there is a tipping point that we are approaching quickly beyond which the Earth is ruined for human habitation forever. (Is this the AlGore theory?)

Clearly, little half measures like cutting auto pollution in half in twenty years won't do it.

So here it is:

Kill all the animals.

Raising animals for food is a very inefficent way to feed all these people. Do you have any idea how much grain a beef cow eats before slaughter? And most of the energy generated by that fuel is wasted on things like breathing, walking around, sex, and farting. Of course, that farting is another problem. We have all heard of the damage being caused by the methane cows produce. No cows, no damage. With no cattle, we can convert all that pasture to cropland, and feed the multitudes. Of course, all that feed to produce a gallon of milk is wasteful too, so the dairy cattle are included. I am sure you will get opposition from the Beef Cattle industry and Milk Cattle industry, but hey, they just care about the money, not the earth. They will probably show you some studies showing meat and milk is good for you, but those are paid for by the industries themselves. Instead listening to the bought-and-paid-for studies of the agricultural experts and the ecological scientists, we should ban them from the discussion and listen only to politicians and economics professors.

But why stop with cows. Pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys, all are inefficient uses of our food supply. Wild animals too. Those pesky deer eating our forests are just wasting our limited energy supplies. And don't even get me started on lap dogs. Is there anything more wasteful than a doggie in a purse?

So eliminate one entire level of the food chain. Energy wasted on animals should be directly invested in plants. We can live off vegetables alone - look at California. And we can use the the rest of the biomass produced to create fuel, so we no longer need to use fossil fuels.

Yes, killing all animal life but us is drastic. But the science is in, and there can be no further discussion, or it will be too late. So shut up, stop denying the facts, and go kill something for the good of the earth.

ok Mister Swift.

I feel dumber for having read that.

This Carnivore will be heading to the Black Meat Market for food. Heck, I might begin an illegal animal growing operation in my basement!

GrayBeard Wrote:This Carnivore will be heading to the Black Meat Market for food. Heck, I might begin an illegal animal growing operation in my basement!

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1080

greaybeard theres your solution. ;-)

Clearly we will need food police to control the denying deniers who want to ruin the Earth. Put them on bread and water. Oh, wait...

I believe New York City already has some food police. Maybe they can be training leaders.

Alfalfa and bean sprouts for dinner!! Yum, yum.

Can we at least all agree on the little yappy dogs?

Kill all the cows and India retaliates with nuclear weapons.

ShoreBuc Wrote:Kill all the cows and India retaliates with nuclear weapons.

Make them sign the Cow-oto Treaty.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

ShoreBuc Wrote:Kill all the cows and India retaliates with nuclear weapons.

Make them sign the Cow-oto Treaty.

lmfao lmfao

[

GrayBeard Wrote:This Carnivore will be heading to the Black Meat Market for food. Heck, I might begin an illegal animal growing operation in my basement!

Heh, you are looking for the black meat... market :kobe:

Man, has it been liberating to be liberal for once. No need to worry about implementation or unforeseen consequences. Just propose something, and if anyone objects, just shout them down with phrases like "I guess you want your grandchildren to starve".

Went out to dinner with friends. We went to IHOP, and I told them I was going to start now on living without animals. We have to, to save the earth. So I ordered the Nut and Grain pancakes. My friend said he would help hurry up the extinction of the animal life, so he got BOTH sausage and bacon. He is still kind of a conservative, so of course he asked how all this would be done. I said, I don't know, I guess we will just create a new bureaucracy to enforce the law. He said it would work better if we did our usual liberal thing of taxing the rich, so we decided to tax livestock owners $1000 for every horse or cow, $500 for every sheep, goat, or pig, and $150 for every chicken or turkey. Since poor people don't own livestock, just those rich farmers will pay, and they can afford it. They're all cronies of Bush anyway. Some of them have even been selling meat to the military. War profiteers. Anyway, you have to hit those polluters where it hurts - the pocketbook,

In reality,

Could we put some ingenuity behind the problem and counterbalance the problem of CO2 emissions? I've read some articles that talk about giant sattelites that unfurl huge solar collecting foils. We could then beam electrical energy down to a collecting station using microwaves. (One problem here is China could bump the sattelite and there would be a death ray going across the continental United States. lmfao ) Use a geostationary satellite over any area of desert, any area that gets too much radiation now, and counterbalance that trapped radiation. One argument from the right that does hold merit is we can't control what India and China do in regards to CO 2.So what can we do? Another area I think we could make a big dent is in electrical cars. Let's ramp up our nuclear technology and have everyone plugging in their cars. Wait what about nuclear wastes. Believe it or not but there is a technology out there using carbon fibers. You build a giant elevator and then send the waste to the sun to be burned up. I read it in a Current Science a couple of years back. Interesting.

Machiavelli Wrote:In reality,

Could we put some ingenuity behind the problem and counterbalance the problem of CO2 emissions? I've read some articles that talk about giant sattelites that unfurl huge solar collecting foils. We could then beam electrical energy down to a collecting station using microwaves.

Wow. I agree with you. I haven't seen all the discussions on this, but it is one that may be gaining some traction. This was the plan that W should have put out when he was revamping NASA (of course McCulsky the Dim would still have objected.)

Quote:Use a geostationary satellite over any area of desert, any area that gets too much radiation now, and counterbalance that trapped radiation.

That's pretty dumb.

There is talk of putting a defocusing lens at one of the Lagrangian points, but I think that's pretty flaky too.

Quote:One argument from the right that does hold merit is we can't control what India and China do in regards to CO 2.So what can we do?

Why doesn't that hold merit? Of course it does. It's one of the reasons that the Kyoto protocol hasn't done a damn bit of good...rather it's done harm.

Quote:Another area I think we could make a big dent is in electrical cars. Let's ramp up our nuclear technology and have everyone plugging in their cars. Wait what about nuclear wastes.

Recycle nuclear wastes. Technology exists. I don't know the details or status. A company named Nuclear Solutions started off in this direction, however, they no longer mention it on their website.
Hard to believe our brilliant science teachers and journalists haven't looked into this...since they're known to be so dilligent.

Quote: Believe it or not but there is a technology out there using carbon fibers. You build a giant elevator and then send the waste to the sun to be burned up. I read it in a Current Science a couple of years back. Interesting.

lmfao

That idea is around, but it's a f'n stupid idea...flawed both scientifically and technologically.

Quote:Recycle nuclear wastes. Technology exists. I don't know the details or status. A company named Nuclear Solutions started off in this direction, however, they no longer mention it on their website.
Hard to believe our brilliant science teachers and journalists haven't looked into this...since they're known to be so dilligent.

I think the government ruled out nuclear fuel recycling during the Carter years due to proliferation but then allowed it again under Reagan. Now there is no reason not to reprocess, but I guess energy companies think it is more cost effective to keep all their waste on site. I think they reprocess in europe, though.

Mach, hope you are feeling better today. I expected you to post whenever you got to work, and here it is Tuesday already. I assume you took a sick day.

Tulsaman, you got the point rather swiftly, I must say.

Back to Mach - you seem to make the assumption that it is OK to rob the deserts of their energy and that this will not change anything for the negative. I cannot even begin to define the negative things that would happen to the people, plants, and animals in the areas you dismiss, but it would have a cascade of effects that are similar to the ones you are trying to correct. I don't think making deserts colder is neccesarily better than making icecaps warmer. Maybe you should put the shields over the poles instead. The antelope would like that.

I posted over lunch smart ass. Don't have much time today or for that matter this week. I'm not talking about blotting a whole area. Actyally my first idea was over the Sahara. If you don't want to go with geo-sationary go with polar orbiting like the GPS system. I don't think you could microwave the electricity down to a station though. I like voiding one area. How is this any different than zoning an area industrial. You take out plants and wildlife there too. Except, with my idea nature will adapt in that area. Who knows. Your post was trying to ridicule the idea of solving Global Warming and i think we can solve it. We did a hell of a job with CFC's and the ozone layer. We can impact our globe in a positive sense too.

Machiavelli Wrote:Except, with my idea nature will adapt in that area.

Natue will adapt to a warmer globe too, so why bother?

Quote:Your post was trying to ridicule the idea of solving Global Warming and i think we can solve it. We did a hell of a job with CFC's and the ozone layer.

lmfao

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/e...i/63/21998

Golly gee, Mach, I am happy that you are back to normal. Since your posts are over 2:20 apart, I will just assume you get really good lunch breaks.

You just don't get it, do you. The world is interconnected, and changing one part changes others. You yourself recognized this in so many ways - your zoning analogy(getting really personal there), melting polar caps raising seas levels, etc. Then you think you can change the Sahara in a vacuum. Whether it is the Sahara, the Gobi, the Sonoran, or any other desert, changing the nature of the desert changes weather patterns I guess that is like fighting fire with fire - fight climate changes with other climate changes. Once we start juggling all these climate changes, I think unintended consequences will cause us to do more and more and more until the system collapses.

Edit: Examples - rabbits in australia, kudzu, fire ants, killing the yellowstone wolves, etc.

Do you think there were no El Ninos before the Spanish came to California? Most of what is happening is a natural process, but the thrust of the GW movement is to try and stop this natural change in its tracks - to lock the Earth into the same weather pattern as 30 years ago. Not only is that not possible, IMO, but the cure could end up worse than the disease. The real crisis it that it will affect people adversely economically for the first time in history. If you just wanted to reverse the small percentage that is man-caused, fine, but that won't stop the glaciers from melting, etc. The only way to stop the melting, etc., is to stop the natural warming cycle. Yes, let us control nature. No hubris there. The flaw in the GW movement is the thought that the Earth will return to stability once we cancel the effect of modern man, when in truth the world's climate has never been stable.

As for my post as being one ridiculing the idea of solving global warming, it really is more of one riduculing the Chicken Littles who are running around saying the science is proven, don't let those other people speak, and act now, worry about consequences later.

Quote:Enough. You go on stealing taxpayer's time. I will (silently from now on) go on considering you a thief and a hypocrite.

Glad to see your a man of your word. We went over this in Dec. I post from a laptop (so i can still see the kids when I look at the screen). There were three kids in a Study Hall quietly doing there homework when I posted the 2nd one. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Forget I typed that. Your a stubborn sob who likes to chip away at something he percieves as a weakness. I don't have any problem with it. Kid has a question he/she raises their hand I quit typing and help them out. Come back and finish my thought. Believe it or not I was interrupted three times in the last paragraph. Once by a janitor, (I helped her find the other trash container), once by a libarian, and then by a teacher friend whose planning on visiting Chicago. Took me about 30 minutes to type it. No problems!!!

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Do you think there were no El Ninos before the Spanish came to California?

That's a trick question, isn't it? ;-)

Quote:Most of what is happening is a natural process, but the thrust of the GW movement is to try and stop this natural change in its tracks - to lock the Earth into the same weather pattern as 30 years ago. Not only is that not possible, IMO, but the cure could end up worse than the disease. The real crisis it that it will affect people adversely economically for the first time in history. If you just wanted to reverse the small percentage that is man-caused, fine, but that won't stop the glaciers from melting, etc. The only way to stop the melting, etc., is to stop the natural warming cycle. Yes, let us control nature. No hubris there. The flaw in the GW movement is the thought that the Earth will return to stability once we cancel the effect of modern man, when in truth the world's climate has never been stable.

As for my post as being one ridiculing the idea of solving global warming, it really is more of one riduculing the Chicken Littles who are running around saying the science is proven, don't let those other people speak, and act now, worry about consequences later.

Ok, I'm cutting this and saving it to plagiarize from later.

mlb Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:This Carnivore will be heading to the Black Meat Market for food. Heck, I might begin an illegal animal growing operation in my basement!

Heh, you are looking for the black meat... market :kobe:

We have a winner. This alone made the thread worth while.....

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:Enough. You go on stealing taxpayer's time. I will (silently from now on) go on considering you a thief and a hypocrite.

Glad to see your a man of your word. We went over this in Dec. I post from a laptop (so i can still see the kids when I look at the screen). There were three kids in a Study Hall quietly doing there homework when I posted the 2nd one. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Forget I typed that. Your a stubborn sob who likes to chip away at something he percieves as a weakness. I don't have any problem with it. Kid has a question he/she raises their hand I quit typing and help them out. Come back and finish my thought. Believe it or not I was interrupted three times in the last paragraph. Once by a janitor, (I helped her find the other trash container), once by a libarian, and then by a teacher friend whose planning on visiting Chicago. Took me about 30 minutes to type it. No problems!!!

yeah, I guess we are both hypocrites. You more than me,IMO, because I do not defend my not keeping my word. You see nothing wrong with what you are doing. So the guy who defends his use of of his employer's property and time for personal use is pointing the finger at me. Ironic.

I can drive and talk on my cellphone at the same time. I think I am doing an adequate job of both, but some people think not, as they want to pass laws making it illegal for me to use my (hands-free) cellphone while driving. They say the statistics show that even hands-free cellphone users are more likely to be in an accident. What do you think? Good law or bad law?

DrTorch Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Do you think there were no El Ninos before the Spanish came to California?

That's a trick question, isn't it?

Quote:Most of what is happening is a natural process, but the thrust of the GW movement is to try and stop this natural change in its tracks - to lock the Earth into the same weather pattern as 30 years ago. Not only is that not possible, IMO, but the cure could end up worse than the disease. The real crisis it that it will affect people adversely economically for the first time in history. If you just wanted to reverse the small percentage that is man-caused, fine, but that won't stop the glaciers from melting, etc. The only way to stop the melting, etc., is to stop the natural warming cycle. Yes, let us control nature. No hubris there. The flaw in the GW movement is the thought that the Earth will return to stability once we cancel the effect of modern man, when in truth the world's climate has never been stable.

As for my post as being one ridiculing the idea of solving global warming, it really is more of one riduculing the Chicken Littles who are running around saying the science is proven, don't let those other people speak, and act now, worry about consequences later.

Ok, I'm cutting this and saving it to plagiarize from later.

Feel free. I flattered you like it.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Do you think there were no El Ninos before the Spanish came to California?

GrayBeard Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Do you think there were no El Ninos before the Spanish came to California?

lmfao lmfao

GrayBeard Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Do you think there were no El Ninos before the Spanish came to California?

I am El Ni

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:Enough. You go on stealing taxpayer's time. I will (silently from now on) go on considering you a thief and a hypocrite.

Glad to see your a man of your word. We went over this in Dec. I post from a laptop (so i can still see the kids when I look at the screen). There were three kids in a Study Hall quietly doing there homework when I posted the 2nd one. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Forget I typed that. Your a stubborn sob who likes to chip away at something he percieves as a weakness. I don't have any problem with it. Kid has a question he/she raises their hand I quit typing and help them out. Come back and finish my thought. Believe it or not I was interrupted three times in the last paragraph. Once by a janitor, (I helped her find the other trash container), once by a libarian, and then by a teacher friend whose planning on visiting Chicago. Took me about 30 minutes to type it. No problems!!!

yeah, I guess we are both hypocrites. You more than me,IMO, because I do not defend my not keeping my word. You see nothing wrong with what you are doing. So the guy who defends his use of of his employer's property and time for personal use is pointing the finger at me. Ironic.

I can drive and talk on my cellphone at the same time. I think I am doing an adequate job of both, but some people think not, as they want to pass laws making it illegal for me to use my (hands-free) cellphone while driving. They say the statistics show that even hands-free cellphone users are more likely to be in an accident. What do you think? Good law or bad law?

How much more likely? Just from my driving experience, it seems like some people on cell-phones are in their own little world and are not paying attention to what's going on around them. Not surprising that they are more likely to be in an accident. Depends on the stats though, I think. Not sure if you could enforce a law like that.

I don't know. It's been a while since I have seen anything on this in the paper. The surprising thing to me was that hands-free technology was not significantly safer than just the regular drving with the cellphine held to your ear. Basically, the sutdies found that ANY other distraction lessened safety - talking with passengers, eating, drinking, etc. But the lawmakers that are considering legislation are looking primarily at cellphones.

Most people have trouble doing two or more things at once with 100% efficiency. If I'm driving and talking, and traffic gets bad, the conversation falters. Other times I'm wrapped up in the conversation and miss my exit. Maybe training/experience can alleviate this to some extent - a drummer can sing without missing a beat. Maybe if one of the tasks is trivial, it may not be a problem. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and probably do both well, although if I am going down steps I may stop chewing to concentrate on not falling.

Mach's Long Link has been shortened!


article how politics plays into impartial scientists

Good one for you Torchy.

Machiavelli Wrote:Shortened this one too


article how politics plays into impartial scientists

Good one for you Torchy.

Well if it's on the internet, it must be true.

Waxman investigating the politicization of science is just about the definition of preposterous. His flip-flop on the Los Angeles subway was founded on totally politicized analyses of tunneling techniques where methane occurs. When his westide constituents wanted to keep the "bad elements" out of their lovely neighborhoods, safe technology didn't exist. Now that the westsiders want a solution to their horrible traffice, voila - he found the technology.

To the point, what's clearly not being discussed at his hearings is the large amount of funding going to scientists who are human-influence warming advocates. This is why many of us distrust BOTH sides of the argument.

Brookes Owl Wrote:To the point, what's clearly not being discussed at his hearings is the large amount of funding going to scientists who are human-influence warming advocates. This is why many of us distrust BOTH sides of the argument.

Well said.

As far as global warming is concerned, we NEED a thick, smoggy atmosphere in order to burn up any asteroids that may come our way.

Why do we even bother doing anything? We may as well continue to do what we are doing. Nothing is going to get done anyway while we still have people who believe pollution is a good thing(Dr Torch) and that global warming is Gods will.

RobertN Wrote:Why do we even bother doing anything?

We shouldn't.

Quote:We may as well continue to do what we are doing.

Agree, especially since there is no proof what we're doing is causing it.

Quote:Nothing is going to get done anyway while we still have people who believe pollution is a good thing(Dr Torch) and that global warming is Gods will.

Or as long as we have that third category of people who are very smart and very educated and know for a fact that there's no proof we're the problem in the first place.

Chicken Little really is the greatest term to describe the global warming alarmists. lmfao

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:Why do we even bother doing anything?

We shouldn't.

Quote:We may as well continue to do what we are doing.

Agree, especially since there is no proof what we're doing is causing it.

Quote:Nothing is going to get done anyway while we still have people who believe pollution is a good thing(Dr Torch) and that global warming is Gods will.

Or as long as we have that third category of people who are very smart and very educated and know for a fact that there's no proof we're the problem in the first place.

Chicken Little really is the greatest term to describe the global warming alarmists. lmfao

I don't consider myself an alarmist, but I don't think we will be able to prove beyond doubt that we are contributing to global warming, until it would be too late and it would get to the point that trying to fix the problem then would be far more expensive than it is now. I mean, what evidence would prove to you that we are contributing significantly? If we spent money on coming up with alternate fuel sources instead of wars to secure oil resources, it would help with oil dependency even if it turned out that our carbon emissions are not contributing to global warming.

and one that hasn't been proven scientifically yet despite what the "experts" are saying. They haven't established conclusively that the earth is warming.

And even if the earth is warming, where's the proof that this warming is due to pollution? Just because the glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate doesn't mean that pollution is the culprit.

Maybe the earth goes through cycles where it moves slightly closer to the sun. Or perhaps the sun is burning a little hotter these days. Maybe the earth is undergoing a polar shift, causing some parts of the earth to warm while others cool.

It is my contention that a lot of these alternate theories have not really been explored by the climate change community. They believe in their heart that man, industry, and capitalism are the problem and they'll tinker with the research until it tells them what they want it to say.

ecu92 Wrote:and one that hasn't been proven scientifically yet despite what the "experts" are saying. They haven't established conclusively that the earth is warming.

And even if the earth is warming, where's the proof that this warming is due to pollution? Just because the glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate doesn't mean that pollution is the culprit.

Maybe the earth goes through cycles where it moves slightly closer to the sun. Or perhaps the sun is burning a little hotter these days. Maybe the earth is undergoing a polar shift, causing some parts of the earth to warm while others cool.

It is my contention that a lot of these alternate theories have not really been explored by the climate change community. They believe in their heart that man, industry, and capitalism are the problem and they'll tinker with the research until it tells them what they want it to say.

You need to watch Inconvenient Truth. I mean really, really watch it. Gore doesn't do a Michael Moore hatchet job. Its just cold hard facts and data. The links are obvious... the data is strong. The causality is clear. In fact, its the data suggesting that the earth is not warming, or that it is somehow warming at a natural rate or from natural causes, that is very, very shaky and appears to be very politically motivated.

Being a skeptic is a good thing. But true conservatives, at some point, let objectivity and the quest for scientific truth come in. The science on global warming is very good --- and data is data. There's very little interpreting to do.

I can't see me watching an Al Gore movie. I'm sorry, can't do it. I would, however, read up on some of his sources from his movie or some of his books.

Global warming is still a theory. That's why you hear talk of this "consensus" of scientists. There is no consensus in science. You have a hypothesis and then as a scientist you set out to prove that hypothesis.
The climate change crowd is behaving more like a political party than a scientific community.

Where is the money coming from for all this climate change research? From those that already believe that global warming is happening and that man is causing it. What happens when a scientist's research doesn't support global climate change? Do they lose their research funding? You bet they do.

The fact that Al Gore and the United Nations are front-and-center on this issue should cause everyone concern.

Quote:Global warming is still a theory.

Don't run out that canard. Gravity is also a theory.

Just too add something about theory............


Critics of science sometimes throw out the theory angle. Like a cop has a good theory who did the crime. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. In science, a theory is well tested peer reviewed idea that has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN. We never prove anything in science. We only disprove. It's a major push right now in science curricula to show the difference between a science theory and "the outsides world theory".

I think the critics of Global Warming have been very effective in exploiting this theory angle. I think scientist's have looked at global warming more as an observation. Think of the difference in your car in the summer when it is parked with the windows closed vs. with the windows cracked. One traps the heat the other lets it escape. This is global warming in a nut shell. We can put C02 in a container and watch the same effect.

Now where the theory angle angle I think does come into effect is what effects this will have. I think we should ALL error on the side of caution. PLUS IT WOULD BE SUCH A BENEFIT to our society in general to ditch the carbon based fuel habit.

OUGwave Wrote:You need to watch Inconvenient Truth. I mean really, really watch it. Gore doesn't do a Michael Moore hatchet job. Its just cold hard facts and data.

The entire movie is made from the perspective that global warming is a crisis with humans as its major cause. It's "facts" and data that support one side and one side only. It is in no way, shape or form an objective look at the issue.

Quote:The links are obvious... the data is strong.

Link does not equal cause. And link also doesn't equal crisis.

Quote:The causality is clear.

No, it really isn't. And there are very, very smart people who say so. Those that claim otherwise are not aware of all of the facts or have an agenda.

The truly objective realize that.

Quote:In fact, its the data suggesting that the earth is not warming, or that it is somehow warming at a natural rate or from natural causes, that is very, very shaky and appears to be very politically motivated.[/quote

It's a fact that the earth was warming long before humans began using fossile fuels. That fact alone calls into question any theory that lays the blame at the feet of man.

[quoteBeing a skeptic is a good thing. But true conservatives, at some point, let objectivity and the quest for scientific truth come in.

Agree totally. Which is why we don't dismiss the stong data that suggests humans aren't the primary cause of global warming.

Quote:The science on global warming is very good --- and data is data. There's very little interpreting to do.

So is the science that asserts humans aren't the primary cause.

And your comment about there being a lack of interpeting to do couldn't be more wrong. "Data" told many scientists not a few decades ago that the earth was cooling, not warming.

We have lots of data, but to know what it's telling us requires study and interpretation. Data alone tells you nothing.

It's not difficult to take temperatures at many places on the earth and see that temperatures are increasing globally. Glaciers melting in both the Arctic and Antartica shows that. They've been measuring temps worldwide for decades. It's harder but do-able to measure solar irradiance. If earth's temps are rising faster, there's a good chance that something is going on, either a delayed or amplified greenhouse effect, or it's a manmade difference.

We have spacecraft studying the sun on a daily basis. If the sun's getting hotter, we know about it. What I've read is that earth is warming faster than solar irradiance can account for. That's enough reason to take global warming seriously, not slough it off like an ostrich with his head in the sand and let the next generation worry about it.

NIU007 Wrote:We have spacecraft studying the sun on a daily basis. If the sun's getting hotter, we know about it. What I've read is that earth is warming faster than solar irradiance can account for. That's enough reason to take global warming seriously, not slough it off like an ostrich with his head in the sand and let the next generation worry about it.

It's very much worth study. What it's not worth is knee jerk reactions when the science that has been studying it very young relatively speaking and has yielded exactly zero concrete evidence that humans are the primary cause.

I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist, quite the contrary. What I'm saying is an objective review of the evidence can yield no other conclusion than an inconclusive one. And in such a case there's nothing wrong with someone being skeptical about this almost religious fervor from many about it.

"They've been measuring temps worldwide for decades."

Interesting that you say decades. Even if I grant you that earth temps have been steadily rising since, say 1850, what does that prove? The earth is millions of years old. What you have is an extremely miniscule sample size.

It's kind of like saying: 75 deg. on Monday, 76 on Tues., 77 on Weds., therefore, we will continue to have 1 degree temperature increases each day for the foreseeable future. Oh my God, the earth is going to catch on fire!

No one is sloughing off anything. But reasonable, independent-minded people need more proof than Mr. Gore's "documentary" or having a team of United Nation's scientists endorsing it.

Einstein didn't need or seek a consensus on his theory of relativity, he put forth a hypothesis, then proved it. I suggest that the climate change crowd do the same.

Quote:Einstein didn't need or seek a consensus on his theory of relativity, he put forth a hypothesis, then proved it. I suggest that the climate change crowd do the same.

He never proved it. As a matter of fact. The theory should hold true at a micro and a macro scale. It doesn't. That's were quantom physics comes into play. There is something missing. We don't know what. String theory is the latest attempt at tying the two together. So you saying Einstein proved it is false.

You can not prove global warming is caused by fossil fuels. You can put correlations. You can put a degree of probability. Would you be happy with a 80%, 90%, 99% chance that we are causing it? There are a few scientist out there who think it is happening but it won't have that much of an effect. I guess it comes down to your level of tolerance of type of world we are going to leave our offspring really. Shoot people win the lottery every day. Let's gamble with our future with loaded dice. To me this is what skeptics of global warming our asking the world to do. and there is SUCH an upside of discovering an alternative fuel. I guess that's where I am at. Thoughts???

double post

There's simply too many learned experts out there who do not subscribe to the fossil fuel argument. If there was a respected international forum where skeptics and proponents were invited and could debate the issue "on the record," that would be great. Then action could be taken with support from all political parties.

But that's not what's happening here. Rather than rebuke the skeptics point-for-point with fact, they've blackballed the skeptics from their forums and conventions. Scientists funded by climate change foundations are producing the research, yet no one seems to think there's a conflict of interest. Anti-global warming research funded by the oil industry is seen as circumspect and rightly so.

I would be satisfied if there a credible source that showed a 80% probability that fossil fuels were causing global warming. It would have to be from a source that had no vested interest in the conclusions. Gore and the United Nations are only credible to the left.