ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 7048
Feb 17 07 2:34 AM
Former Owner
Quote:I have gone out of my way to acknowledge that the science is not totally, 100% conclusive and there is room for some skepticism. But the science is fairly conclusive at this point ...
Interact
Posts: 8416
Feb 17 07 12:41 PM
Feb 17 07 12:53 PM
Posts: 2397
Feb 17 07 2:54 PM
Feb 18 07 12:30 AM
Feb 18 07 2:48 AM
Quote:It isn't just post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The climate models are getting better and better, and they reach the same conclusion.
Quote:In short, your criticism is simply wrong--this is not the "same bunch".
Quote:He also agrees that CO2 does help warm the Earth, and he supports a reduction in fossil fuel use for other reasons (pollution).
Posts: 845
Feb 18 07 3:27 AM
Posts: 2686
Feb 18 07 6:02 AM
Feb 18 07 12:53 PM
Feb 18 07 7:05 PM
Posts: 2949
Feb 18 07 8:03 PM
Owner
Feb 18 07 11:33 PM
Posts: 1871
Feb 19 07 5:27 AM
Feb 19 07 10:53 AM
Quote:char: "Note you assume it's a "line", rather than evaluating the evidence."
Quote:char: "When one chooses to believe anything other than the anthropogenic GW hypothesis as you guys do, whether it's the now discredited denial that the warming occurs or attributing it to the sun or undersea volcanoes or cosmic rays, there seems to be something going on that is not entirely rational."
Quote:char: "Are the scientists in the articles being treated unfairly by their peers? They are publishing their results and they are being looked at. If you can accept that the minority is acting honestly, why can't you accept that the vast majority is as well?"
Quote:char: "Your biases are political, and are not based on the data, which support a warming effect from CO2, as even some of the deniers admit."
Feb 19 07 7:50 PM
Feb 20 07 7:08 AM
Feb 20 07 10:31 AM
Quote:iowan15: "Notice that, from the perspective of the global warming hysterics, it is 'not entirely rational' to research, suggest, or hypothesize other causes of global warming. No, it MUST be due to human activity, it must, it must, it must. And the spoon banging intensifies with every suggestion to the contrary."char: "I do see GW hysterics on both sides, but I have not been hysterical about this. I clearly stated that the case was not ironclad, but does seem quite strong. This is from data, not presupposition or desire. Who wants to pay more for energy? Not me. There just isn't a motive for making up GW. Who does it benefit? Even if you could identify a backer on the GW side as motivated and generous as the oil and coal companies are for those who disagree (the nuclear industry, perhaps), you still have to contend with the data."
Quote:iowan15: "That's a two-way street, char. You've made it quite clear that you believe, as do Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe, that the scientists that aren't on the Al-Gore-Express are, dishonestly, in the hip pockets of 'Big Oil'."char: "You may not have read all the posts, so I will repeat that I do believe that the majority of the researchers who disagree with the AGW hypothesis come by their opinions honestly, wherever they get their money. But when you survey the field, most climatologists agree with AGW. I don't see why I shouldn't take this into account."
Quote:iowan15: "I suspect that there are biases on both sides that are political. That's not unusual since those who side with Al 'The Sky is Falling' Gore, such as Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe last year, have MADE it political."char: "Politics is how we decide whether and how to deal with challenges and opportunities that are better met with concerted responses than head-in-the-sand wilful ignorance."
Quote:char: "There are two aspects to the response to GW that I have stressed. One is to attempt to slow it by reducing the growth in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases; if you don't think GW is anthropogenic, I can understand why you'd be skeptical of the need for that."
Quote:char: "The other aspect is to plan and prepare for the results of GW, however it is caused. This is also something that only governments can do, and perhaps the UN."
Quote:char: "Even you guys have finally backed off from denying that GW is happening, so this will still be necessary to avoid the worst dislocations that will arise from rising sea levels, changes in crop and disease vector distributions, rainfall changes, and other results of GW."
Quote:char: "Neither of those measures is being addressed adequately today, and the results will be apparent in several decades, and potentially catastrophic in a century or so."
Quote:char: "I suspect humanity will muddle through, but it's unfortunate that more deaths and suffering will occur than necessary due to the pigheadedness and selfishness of so many in our generation."
Quote:char: "I don't exclude myself from this indictment; I'm just more aware of reality than some of you on this board, which makes me even more blameworthy, I suppose."
Quote:char: "It is amusing to see the evolution of the anti-AGW argument as it retreats in front of the evidence, but it's clear that minds are very difficult to change once they've dug in."
Quote:char: "By the time I die, I think the AGW hypothesis will be either refuted or confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt."
Quote:char: "It would be great if it turned out to be a baseless scare."
Quote:char: "Then, the conservation measures being pushed would have had the effect of saving energy, but been otherwise useless. If AGW is correct, though, we'll have missed an opportunity to save us all a considerable amount of grief."
Feb 20 07 12:28 PM
Posts: 16876
Feb 20 07 1:17 PM
Quote:Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planetAmerican meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines. Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive. It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water. "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November. Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation. The latter two gases are particularly troubling even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Feb 20 07 1:48 PM
Share This