Page 63 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1353585960616263646566676873 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,260 of 2209
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1241  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    There is no controversy of the major climate science organizations on this issue. I support the views of the vast majority of climate scientists, you do not. You are right, you cannot change my mind with your rhetoric or obscure news articles.
    There is nothing particularly obscure about NASA's GISS database (which is something Algore alludes to constantly in his presentations) or about an MIT scientist of atmospheric studies.

    I mean, are you going to question another source I have, the chairman of the Deparment of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin? Is that too "obscure" as well?

    What about the fact that while the North polar ice cap is melting, Antartica is as large as it has ever been - as told by Joseph D'Aleo, Fellow of the American Meterological Society with over 30 years of experience?

    How about Robert Balling, Professor of Climatology at Arizona State University?

    How about Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist professor from Harvard University - who says that the activities of the Sun have a greater effect on the climate on Earth than anything man could possibly do?

    How about Pat Michaels, research professor for the University of Viriginia, who is probably the most published researcher in the country regarding Climate Change - as his works have appeared in everything from the major scientific enviromental research journal "Climate Research" to the Washington Post, to BBC, to PBS?

    Is he obscure?

    I have other sources from, lets see, Colorado State University, the University of Auckland, The University of Oklahoma, The University of Delaware, University of Missouri....

    ....on and on.

    All obscure I presume?

    I mean, really, Cell - you can sit there and believe whatever you want to believe, but do not be intellectually lazy by just being dismissive of the sources. It just makes you look deficient.
  2. #1242  
    please cite peer reviewed scientific articles which support your position and I will be glad to read them.
  3. #1243  
    Global warming, as it is being spun, is a myth. Gojeda has made numerous references to point that out, so I will not repeat.

    The issues is that while I agree we have a POLLUTION problem, that does not mean it's GLOBAL WARMING (due to humans!).

    They are two different things.

    Al Gore and all the beleiver are really very arrogant. Do you think we humans could change the planet's climate in 100 years? Really, it shows a lot of hubris, as if the previous hundreds of million of years don't matter. (or solar activity, for that mattter.)

    Yes, in the 70s everyone on was convinced another Ice Age was on the way. (am I the only one that remembers this?).

    The Global Warming scam is a way to suck dollars away from other programs and create programs (taxes) the are for special interests.

    I'm all for limiting/managing pollution, and innovative energy plans (like nuclear) to get energy independence/ecomomic advantage. But let's not use global warming as the excuse to address these.
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1244  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    please cite peer reviewed scientific articles which support your position and I will be glad to read them.
    Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (Geophysical Research Letters)
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

    Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming (Journal of The American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791

    The Solar System and its Regulation of the Earth's Climte (Journal of Coastal Research)
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf
  5. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1245  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    mikec and godaja I admire your chutzpah but you are simply just rambling on and flame baiting but you simply have nothing to support your arguments other than rhetoric, dropping of names and citing of obscure news (rather than convincing peer reviewed scientific) articles. I am not going to waste my time with either of you.
    LOL....yes, I am flame baiting because I've just posted, per your request, three peer-reviewed articles that are inconvenient to your demagoguery.

    Get a grip.
  6. #1246  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (Geophysical Research Letters)
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

    Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming (Journal of The American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791

    The Solar System and its Regulation of the Earth's Climte (Journal of Coastal Research)
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf
    Young neo...you wouldn't be cherry picking data now would you? I mean, sciencemag.org also posted this recently http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1012/1

    Also interesting might be http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT

    Oh the heck with it - just search sciencemag.org for global warming and you'll find all of this to read through as well as your cherry picked data http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search...m=GEOCHEM+PHYS

    And the author of your first article also gave a lecture as recently as 2007 whereby he posted this http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pop/Ear...house2007W.pdf Interesting to note he spends a fair amount of time encouraging people to car pool and conserve energy. This is a very interesting presentation actually for all on the forum to review.

    Again...I have to run and catch a plane. But if your posts were intended to prove definitively that global warming does not exists and is uniformly rejected by scientist then you were being quite disingenuous as one can plainly see. There are a myriad of opinions as to the causes and extent of global warming, but not much debate as to whether it exists nor whether man is increasing the rate of warming. Now how much they are increasing it and other causes of it are all certainly worthy of debate.

    Perhaps I am not understanding your position correctly though?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/13/2007 at 06:21 AM.
  7. #1247  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Perhaps I am not understanding your position correctly though?
    His "position", if that can be said with a straight face, is purely anti-Gore. It matters not what the subject is. Gore could go on record as believing gojeda to be the US's more precious asset and gojeda will take the polar opposite view, for self-entertaining grins and giggles. As he recently posted:
    So, in light of what we do know, and what we don't know - my position is this:

    1. I neither affirm nor deny there is abnormal global warming.
    It should be plain for any and all to see what the modus operandi is of this person. Pure hate-based political venom. Haven't we witnessed enough of that? There can be no intellectually honest communication with this individual, as the content of each of his posts serves only his self-consumed purposes. Both a sad and laughable situation, but either way his involvement only serves as a distraction from real communication and building bridges. He should be curbed as his involvement only drags the standard down in flames. He has made himself a black-and-white distinctive issue.
  8. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1248  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    His "position", if that can be said with a straight face, is purely anti-Gore.
    The position is anti-Gore because it is based on Algore's constant barrage of alarmist rhetoric that has succeeded in scaring a lot of people who are not particularly scientifically minded or care little what the actual science, as we know it to be right now, has to say about climate change

    Add to this the fact that Algore has personally profitted handsomely from his mythical crusade to "save" the planet (see generationim.com) and has done nothing, personally, do reduce his own carbon footprint, I think we end up with the classic case of, "Do as I say, not as I do."

    So you see, Shortstuff, you can go on your little daily tantrums against me from the moment you get up in the moring until the cows come home, but that will never address or cover-up the shaky science and dubious message your idol foists on the public on a daily basis.

    Fortunately, more and more people are taking a serious and far more balanced look at climate change, and not giving in to the hysteria.
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1249  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Young neo...you wouldn't be cherry picking data now would you?
    Who is neo?

    But if your posts were intended to prove definitively that global warming does not exists and is uniformly rejected by scientist then you were being quite disingenuous as one can plainly see.
    I never said global warming does not exist. You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth, again, are you?

    There are a myriad of opinions as to the causes and extent of global warming, but not much debate as to whether it exists nor whether man is increasing the rate of warming.
    There is quite a bit of debate whether man is contributing in a meaningful way to global warming. My sources say as much.

    Perhaps I am not understanding your position correctly though?
    Actually, the more accurate and honest thing to say is that you are ignoring my position of global warming, which was clearly laid out towards the end of post #1237.
  10. #1250  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Actually, the more accurate and honest thing to say is that you are ignoring my position of global warming, which was clearly laid out towards the end of post #1237.
    Not really. Just didn't have time to read through it all to determine whether it was another one of your rhetorical meaningless rants or something of substance. I'll take the time to read your post above now that I've landed on US soil and have a lay over.

    Glad to hear to you agree global warming exists. For a minute there I thought perhaps you were as far out there as mikec on the subject. So then that leaves the remaining debate to be whether it is a crisis or not.
  11. #1251  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (Geophysical Research Letters)
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
    This article unfortunately appears to be seriously flawed and the data are highly unreliable.
    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/resea...n_schwartz.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming (Journal of The American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791
    This article not at all exclude a human contribution to global warming it instead confirms what everyone already knows - that natural forces also contribute to climate change. I will let everyone here appreciate that too by posting the editor's news summary:

    "News of the Week
    CLIMATE CHANGE:
    A Far-South Start for Ice Age's End
    Richard A. Kerr

    Where was the thermostat switch that, once thrown, began to thaw the world out of the last ice age? Paleoceanographers long assumed that it lay in the North Atlantic Ocean somewhere; then the tropical ocean gained popularity in some quarters. But now, strong new evidence from the tropics places the start yet farther south, in the waters around Antarctica. The result "is all very solid, very hard to question," says paleoceanographer William Ruddiman, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. "But it also tells us things are complicated. There are just layers of complexity to this."
    Finding where it all started "comes down to timing," says paleoceanographer Lowell Stott of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. But determining the timing of climate events can be tough when, say, warming in the tropics is recorded in marine sediment, whereas warming in Antarctica is recorded in glacial ice. Those are dated by entirely different methods, which injects an uncomfortable amount of uncertainty.

    Stott and colleagues Axel Timmermann, a modeler at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, and paleoceanographer Robert Thunell of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, eliminated that uncertainty, at least, by gauging changing temperature in western Pacific surface waters and in Antarctic waters in a single sediment core recovered just west of the Philippine island of Mindanao. At any point in the core, microfossils that had fallen from western Pacific surface waters recorded temperature there in their oxygen isotopic composition, whereas microfossils that always lived on the sea floor recorded the temperature of bottom water that had sunk from the surface of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica. Then the group radiocarbon-dated the sediment.

    The results, reported online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791, were startling. In an earlier Science paper, Thunell and Stott had concluded that the tropical Pacific had warmed first, presumably causing glacial ice to begin melting. But their new analysis shows that more than 18,000 years ago, Antarctic waters warmed 1000 to 1300 years before tropical waters.
    Starting from that timing and drawing on other dated records, Stott and colleagues spin a tale of how the ice started melting. First, predictable variations in Earth's orbit and tilt increased the amount of sunlight hitting high southern latitudes during austral spring. That warmed things up locally and shrank the sea ice back toward Antarctica, uncapping the Southern Ocean and freeing much of its carbon dioxide to begin warming the whole world.

    Nice story, other researchers say, and the starting point at least seems fairly solid. "I think they make a convincing case that something is happening at high southern latitudes before tropical temperatures change," says paleoceanographer Jean Lynch-Stieglitz of Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. But, as she and Ruddiman both note, putting together the deglaciation story is "a tricky business." And there are dissenting voices. Paleoceanographer David Lea of the University of California, Santa Barbara, says it isn't so clear polar warming preceded tropical warming, given the difficulty of picking out exactly when the tropical warming began. All agree that finishing up the story in the Northern Hemisphere--where most ice melting eventually occurred--will take much more work."


    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The Solar System and its Regulation of the Earth's Climte (Journal of Coastal Research)
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf
    The third article is not an original research paper but rather a biography of Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge. While he presented a novel approach to understanding natural influences on climate change, his work does not in the least exclude human contributions.

    So in summary, these articles in no way exclude a role for humans in global warming.
    ----------------------------
    The American Association for the Advancement of Science, publishers of the most respected US science journal "Science" (where article 2 was published) has a board of directors consisting of the most accomplished and prestigious scientists in the world, who say this about global warming:

    The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible. Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be. History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive research, development and deployment effort to transform the existing and future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies. In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf
    ----------------------------
    I encourage everyone to learn more about the science yourselves on global warming. The AAAS and the reputable journal Nature are a good place to start.

    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html
  12. #1252  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    There is quite a bit of debate whether man is contributing in a meaningful way to global warming.
    Right. Sort of the point of this thread is to debate global warming.

    My sources say as much.
    But this is where I take exception. You seem to be inferring your sources are the ONLY sources that matter. Are your sources better than our sources? Are your sources the ONLY sources in the scientific community? Are you posturing that the scientific community as a whole are united behind your position? In fact, I'd like to know if you are posturing that a MAJORITY of the scientific community stand behind your position on the subject?
  13. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1253  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    This article unfortunately appears to be seriously flawed and the data are highly unreliable.
    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/resea...n_schwartz.pdf
    Why is that?

    This article not at all exclude a human contribution to global warming it instead confirms what everyone already knows - that natural forces also contribute to climate change. I will let everyone here appreciate that too by posting the editor's news summary:
    One of the premises that the global warming followers use is that greenhouse gases ended the last ice age. The study questions that analysis.

    “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change. You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

    “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms. [The complexities]..have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”


    The third article is not an original research paper but rather a biography of Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge. While he presented a novel approach to understanding natural influences on climate change, his work does not in the least exclude human contributions.
    This article, of course, is not a biography of Dr. Fainbridge. Most of the content of this document cites the findings of Dr. Fainbridge and how important his original work is to the discussion of climate change - specifically, in how the IPCC was remiss not to account for solar activity in its modelling.

    The document cites many studies, as recent as 2005, in the research of solar activity and its relation to the Earth's climate.

    As stated....

    "It is hoped that in its next series of publications, the IPCC includes in its modelling of climate change the consequences of reduction in solar activity excpected during sunsport cycles no. 24, 25, and 26.

    As perviously noted, the IPCC dismissed any significant link between solar variaiblity and climate on the grounds that the variations in electromagnetic radiation were too small. This opinion not only ignores the totality of the Sun's impact on climate and the differential impact of solar output, it is also based on methodologies only appropriate for the analysis of linear and stationary times series."


    In other words, the findings of the IPCC are based on incomplete information. The charge has been made, not only by this study - but by others, that the IPCC has decide to put the conclusions ahead of the science.

    The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years.
    The last five years? According to who? Certainly the data, beginning with the aforementioned GISS tables, does not agree with that assessment.

    Additionally, how does any of those events indicate that human activity is to blame?

    The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible. Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be. History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive research, development and deployment effort to transform the existing and future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies. In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.[/B]
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf
    Speaking of biased

    I am sorry, I see very little science in your citation. What I see is alot of impassioned pleas with not much in the way of science to back things up.

    "We need to act now to avoid droughts and floods...." is not particularly scientific.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1254  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    You seem to be inferring your sources are the ONLY sources that matter.
    Your inference is wrong.

    I used the words "my sources", not "the source".

    Are your sources better than our sources? Are your sources the ONLY sources in the scientific community? Are you posturing that the scientific community as a whole are united behind your position? In fact, I'd like to know if you are posturing that a MAJORITY of the scientific community stand behind your position on the subject?
    The sources are cited not so much to refute the notion that man does not cause climate change. The sources are cited to show a few things:

    1. There is no particular consensus.
    2. The science that says that humans are responsible, or even partly responsible, to climate change is debateable.
    3. That the alarmism is unfounded.
    4. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen whether we want it to or not.

    Since you have made the charge of credentials in this debate, I will remind you of one thing: Algore is not a scientist.

    If we are going to avail ourself of questioning credentials, then perhaps the one who leads the crusade should be the one who should come under scrutiny.

    That being said....

    I am completely open to the notion that there is abrnormal climate change and that humans are responsible for it, but you had better have sound science, alot of it, to make the sentiment stick.
  15. #1255  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The sources are cited not so much to refute the notion that man does not cause climate change. The sources are cited to show a few things:

    1. There is no particular consensus.
    Define consensus.

    2. The science that says that humans are responsible, or even partly responsible, to climate change is debateable.
    So you agree that there is at least some science that substantiates that humans are responsible or not?

    3. That the alarmism is unfounded.
    Well here is where I think you get yourself into trouble. If that is your opinion, fine. But you make it sound as though the alarmism is definitively proven to be unfounded.

    FWIW - I don't think that alarmism is healthy in almost any crisis. Far better to use a calm and cool collected head IMO. And since this is a global matter I should think that calm, cool, rationale thinking as a collective is in order. That means healthly debate rather than ridicule just because you're in the camp that feels it isn't worth sounding the alarm. What if you're wrong? This is not a horse race that'll cost you a few bucks if you're wrong - this is our plant and I don't think we'll be getting a new one any time soon.

    4. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen whether we want it to or not.
    OK. So if some are saying "all hands on deck", you're saying you'd rather sit and mock them for trying instead. Got it.

    Since you have made the charge of credentials in this debate, I will remind you of one thing: Algore is not a scientist.
    Charge? To charge in this context would be to indict or accuse someone of not having certain credentials. Did I do that?

    And nobody ever said Al Gore was a scientist. Not even Al Gore. He did seek out expertise from the scientific community and helped raise awareness of the issue. Why is that wrong? Are you really saying that only scientist are qualified to lead the charge for or against global warming? I think Al Gore was being a leader - not a scientist.

    That being said....

    I am completely open to the notion that there is abnormal climate change and that humans are responsible for it, but you had better have sound science, alot of it, to make the sentiment stick.
    I think Al Gore made a movie to draw attention to an issue that, at the very least, requires further scientific study. But given the gravity of the situation and the dire outcome should he be correct, what in the world is wrong with reducing our carbon output? What could be wrong with finding new and renewable sources of energy rather than relying on fossil fuels for another century?

    So I don't mind that your skeptical. You're not alone. But neither are the scientists that think it is very real and that humans do in fact contribute more than their fair share to global warming. So do cows. So do many other things. Still, I guess I'm not willing to roll over quite yet and say "game over...we cannot win". You obviously are.
  16. #1256  
    Sorry Gorjeda, the overwhelming scientific consensus is clear on human activity and global warming and anyone here who has looked at any of the links I have supplied knows this. This view comes from our leading scientists of our nation. So the burden of proof is on you to prove why you think the vast majority of the experts are wrong and you are correct that humans have no effect on global warming. The articles which you provided do not substantiate your claims.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1257  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Sorry Gorjeda, the overwhelming scientific consensus is clear on human activity and global warming and anyone here who has looked at any of the links I have supplied knows this. This view comes from our leading scientists of our nation. So the burden of proof is on you to prove why you think the vast majority of the experts are wrong and you are correct that humans have no effect on global warming. The articles which you provided do not substantiate your claims.
    Like I said, first you claim that my sources were obscure.

    When I demonstrated that my sources came from one of the most respected scientists in the world, from some of the most prestigious institutions in the world, you then wanted peer-review.

    When peer-review articles criticized the incomplete nature of the IPCC's science and also questioned the role of CO2 in driving the Earth's climate, you then claimed I was being biased.

    In other words, you keep on changing the parameters of the debate and that, to be honest, is lame.

    That is neither here nor there however because I want to make a point.

    The difference between me and you is that you have bought into the hysteria despite the fact that science is not particularly unanimous on the decision. For my part, while I do not think you are particularly wrong, I am not so sure you are right either.

    What I do resent, however, is the alarmism - and the squelching of those who differ on the science.

    Whatever....it has been fun. You can have the last word on this topic.
  18. #1258  
    In case you missed it, I was hoping for a response to my reply http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...postcount=1260
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1259  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Define consensus.
    a "majority of opinion"

    So you agree that there is at least some science that substantiates that humans are responsible or not?
    There is science that says we are responsible. There is science that says we aren't responsible.

    Well here is where I think you get yourself into trouble. If that is your opinion, fine. But you make it sound as though the alarmism is definitively proven to be unfounded.
    The alarmism I have a grave problem with because even many in the scientific community, who do believe that humans contribute to global warming, do not necessary buy into the whole doom and gloom scenario.

    Some say the changes are not significant. Some say that the planet, and those on it, will adapt. Then the third group says the sky is falling.

    So, in other words, opinions are sufficiently "all over the place" to give the thinking person pause and question things.

    This is not a horse race that'll cost you a few bucks if you're wrong - this is our plant and I don't think we'll be getting a new one any time soon.
    I'd say this is all the more reason to not get our collective panties in a wad. I think this demands a lot more science and a balanced approach to the problem - if indeed there is one.

    OK. So if some are saying "all hands on deck", you're saying you'd rather sit and mock them for trying instead. Got it.
    Yes - because the science doesn't support the sounding of alarm bells.

    Charge? To charge in this context would be to indict or accuse someone of not having certain credentials. Did I do that?
    Yes, you did "charge". You made a formal accusation saying that my sources were the only sources.

    And nobody ever said Al Gore was a scientist. Not even Al Gore. He did seek out expertise from the scientific community and helped raise awareness of the issue. Why is that wrong?
    I have a problem with his alarmism and his hypocrisy on the issue.

    Are you really saying that only scientist are qualified to lead the charge for or against global warming?
    I think the scientific community should be the ones to say, without equivocation, whether or not there is adnormal global warming. I don't think we are there yet.

    I think Al Gore made a movie to draw attention to an issue that, at the very least, requires further scientific study.
    Then why doesn't he say that? Why does he pretend that this is apocalyptic?

    But given the gravity of the situation and the dire outcome should he be correct, what in the world is wrong with reducing our carbon output?
    I don't find anything wrong with reducing artificial emissions of CO2. What I don't see is the need, as of yet, to fall over ourselves to do so.

    What could be wrong with finding new and renewable sources of energy rather than relying on fossil fuels for another century?
    This is another issue altogether.

    So I don't mind that your skeptical. You're not alone. But neither are the scientists that think it is very real and that humans do in fact contribute more than their fair share to global warming. So do cows. So do many other things. Still, I guess I'm not willing to roll over quite yet and say "game over...we cannot win". You obviously are.
    I am waiting for science to tell me one way or the other.
  20. #1260  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    a "majority of opinion"
    ...opinion of whom? Geophysicist? Climatologist? I'd like to research this a bit myself to see if we can find out if there is a majority...or not. But first I need to know the parameters. Who qualifies in your opinion?

    There is science that says we are responsible. There is science that says we aren't responsible.
    Glad we agree on that much. I think perhaps the differences may only be in what we do about it given the gravity of the situation should one side of the equation prove to be correct. Seems to be a rather large gamble for any scientist that has doubts and hasn't yet ruled it out to do nothing but attack those that have made a decision. Peculiar as well that they assume those who’ve that have made up their minds that something needs to be done now, not later, are assumed to be extremists. But maybe these scientists have an extra planet laying around should they be proven wrong.

    The alarmism I have a grave problem with because even many in the scientific community, who do believe that humans contribute to global warming, do not necessary buy into the whole doom and gloom scenario.

    Some say the changes are not significant. Some say that the planet, and those on it, will adapt. Then the third group says the sky is falling.
    I think there may even be more than three groups...but whatever. I can understand a scientist wanting more data before joining a consensus but I don't understand one that mocks one group or their recommendations simply because it doesn't suit their political agenda.

    So, in other words, opinions are sufficiently "all over the place" to give the thinking person pause and question things.

    I'd say this is all the more reason to not get our collective panties in a wad. I think this demands a lot more science and a balanced approach to the problem - if indeed there is one.
    Well I don’t buy into gloom and doom just yet either. But I do understand that the matter requires us to think as a collective and to take action as a collective, be it nominal changes (e.g. teaching people how to be more carbon neutral) or aggressive changes (e.g. such as a rapid shift away from fossil fuels). And I’d guess that motivating 6B+ people to do that may well require more than a few saying they see smoke as it doesn’t tend to get quite the attention than the guy screaming bloody “FIRE” now does it? Such is the nature of any large movement in worldwide opinion as far as I’m concerned.

    Yes - because the science doesn't support the sounding of alarm bells.
    You just said there is science that supports it. There is science that supports both sides of the debates, correct?

    Yes, you did "charge". You made a formal accusation saying that my sources were the only sources.
    Possibly a misunderstanding. I thought you meant I was charging you from a credential point of view. That said I think I asked you if you sources were the only sources to see if you really thought you’re sources were the only sources that mattered.

    I have a problem with his alarmism and his hypocrisy on the issue.
    Whatever. I see him for what he is – a leader attempting to lead 6B people by screaming “fire”. He’s got a lot of people across the globe talking about the issue and I fail to see why that is such a bad thing. As much alarmism as you accuse him of there certainly hasn’t been much more than talk about the issue more so than action. Seems to me we need a few more screaming fire to truly get even nominal changes in place.


    I think the scientific community should be the ones to say, without equivocation, whether or not there is abnormal global warming. I don't think we are there yet.
    So the rest of us 6B **** ants that don’t know any better should just shut the he!l up and wait for the elite scientist determine our fate then? Well that is a regrettable position for someone with your credentials. You know full well that you’ll never get 100% of qualified scientists to agree on the matter one way or the other. Yet the rest of us that share this planet with the scientists are supposed to hold our collective breath for an answer rather than mitigating the risks that at least some scientists say are very real?

    Then why doesn't he say that? Why does he pretend that this is apocalyptic?
    I’ve already explained this. Anything less would be white noise that resulted in no changes at all. Let’s be honest – scientists do not make the best leaders given they are inherently always questioning and reasoning (as they well should) rather than making tough decisions and getting 6B people to change.

    I don't find anything wrong with reducing artificial emissions of CO2. What I don't see is the need, as of yet, to fall over ourselves to do so.
    Great. I’ll simply ask you exactly what changes have been made to date that you would consider “falling over ourselves?” It is merely the discussion and calls for change by those you deem less qualified that bothers you?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/14/2007 at 08:46 AM.

Posting Permissions