Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not going to enter this dog fight as to what's causing global warming, but would like to see No Matter What the Cause (and this is going to be argued until the cows come home), reducing our carbon emissions and developing and using sustainable energy is the smart, proactive thing to do because:
--doing so reduces our dependency on oil imports and reduces our need to drill the heck out of the Arctic and our coasts
--cleans up the air we breathe (asthma and other respiratory diseases are growing by leaps and bounds)
--lets us conserve our vital resources by using less of them
--leads us to use clean energy sources such as wind and solar that are sustainable
So no matter what you think is the cause of Global Warming, reducing our Co2 emissions makes sense (and dollars).
Of course, the Oil companies are spending millions in PR and lobbying (and perhaps even postings here) to convince us otherwise...and why not? The oil companies are in the catbird seat selling gas and oil to us at ever-rising prices. Why should they want us to swap our oil-swilling habits for sustainable energy development and oh my gosh, conservation of our resources? Would you if you were them??
While I wouldn't be surprised if on-going research results hadn't been attractively repackaged, you've got cause and effect backward there. Research doesn't start with a conclusion, nor do most of the granting agencies (at least the public ones) tell you what your conclusion will be.
The scientific community is damned near consensus, and that in itself is amazing. Once you get past agreeing over things like basic Newtonian physics (and you can find a few doubters there), there isn't a lot of agreement on complex interactions.
The consensus, such as it is, is in looking at what HAS happened, not necessarily what will happen. Looking at what will happen requires the use of forward-predicting models, and that's always controversial.
While I wouldn't be surprised if on-going research results hadn't been attractively repackaged, you've got cause and effect backward there. Research doesn't start with a conclusion, nor do most of the granting agencies (at least the public ones) tell you what your conclusion will be.
You have a point, to a point. But remember, the conclusions often are accompanied by a call for further research. If a study ends with a dead end (i.e. global warming is a natural occurrence) then there isn't a need to ask for more grant money along those lines. Researchers are so specialized now that it is not feasible to suddenly jump over to a different aspect of a field and start studying that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal
The scientific community is damned near consensus, and that in itself is amazing. Once you get past agreeing over things like basic Newtonian physics (and you can find a few doubters there), there isn't a lot of agreement on complex interactions.
Sorry, I don't buy there is a consensus. The media has reported a consensus because Al Gore said there was one. I guess I should have been more specific in my link above:
Global Warming Petition Project (http://petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Purpose_Of_Petition.html - broken link)
I know it is only one instance, but remember the scientist who shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore who sued to have his named taken off the list of scientists who agreed with the man-made global warming hypothesis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal
The consensus, such as it is, is in looking at what HAS happened, not necessarily what will happen. Looking at what will happen requires the use of forward-predicting models, and that's always controversial.
We agree on this. It is complicated by the fact that a) we don't understand climate very well; it is a relatively new discipline, and b) computer models, when fed data of what from previous decades, have done a poor job of predicting what has already occurred. By that I mean data from the 1970s-1990s has not accurately predicted what has occurred in the last 10 years.
I suspected that you don't read things you disagree with!
No, not at all, I love to debate if someone has something to say, other than generalizations, and if I can learn something from the discussion.
Yes, I did "see" his statement above. Apparently you didn't read my response to tallrick's post of vague generalizations. My response is self-explanatory.
And you still can't describe what "agenda" you're talking about, nor who "they" are, can you?
Oh, my poor Ninersfan, much too much time on the practice field..??? Foosball should be illegal!!!
Not going to enter this dog fight as to what's causing global warming, but would like to see No Matter What the Cause (and this is going to be argued until the cows come home), reducing our carbon emissions and developing and using sustainable energy is the smart, proactive thing to do because:
--doing so reduces our dependency on oil imports and reduces our need to drill the heck out of the Arctic and our coasts
--cleans up the air we breathe (asthma and other respiratory diseases are growing by leaps and bounds)
--lets us conserve our vital resources by using less of them
--leads us to use clean energy sources such as wind and solar that are sustainable
So no matter what you think is the cause of Global Warming, reducing our Co2 emissions makes sense (and dollars).
If you would substitute the pollution for CO2 in the post above (after all ppm has risen over the last 10 years even as temperatures have stabilized or dropped slightly), I agree with you. One benefit of the environmental movement has been to increase peoples' consciousness about not being wasteful. High energy costs are going to change the marketplace and peoples' habit much more efficiently that any government mandate ever could.
Read the other nearly identical thread call A Proven Fact? in this Green Section, if you're so inclined. There are several studies cited which are completely opposed to what you said in your last post, and in the "Global Warming Petition Project". At least there, people were touting the "more likely than not" rather than absolutes.
No, not at all, I love to debate if someone has something to say, other than generalizations, and if I can learn something from the discussion.
Yes, I did "see" his statement above. Apparently you didn't read my response to tallrick's post of vague generalizations. My response is self-explanatory.
And you still can't describe what "agenda" you're talking about, nor who "they" are, can you?
Oh, my poor Ninersfan, much too much time on the practice field..??? Foosball should be illegal!!!
I actually supported tallrick because you suggested that he might just be being silly.
I can't speak for him necessarily but here are the agenda of Big Government and Big Green as I see them:
Big Government:
Tax increases for redistribution of income
More regulations on industry
The restriction of personal choice, including social engineering that is not as easily accomplished via the tax code (i.e. car pool lanes, CFLs, etc.)
Expansion of government in general, but particularly the Federal Government
Big Green:
The opposition of all growth (including highways, refineries, dams, etc.)
The resulting restrictions on growth lead to higher prices and human suffering
The higher prices and suffering lead to calls for lower population growth
The blaming of humans (particularly Western Nations, more particularly the USA) for destroying the earth and disrupting the climate
The use of the courts to mandate restrictions that would never pass in an election or by officials that have to stand for election
I am not a conspiracy nut. I believe that government naturally seeks to grow itself. That is why the Bill of Rights was meant to be a restriction on government more than on the governed. Environmentalism is a natural fit with government then. However, I do believe that hard-core environmentalists (not the garden variety recycler/gas saver) do have a grudge against the human race in general.
By the way, did you mean foosball or football? I don't play either but I like to watch football. I like low scoring games where the players exhale less CO2, of course.
Even the visual image on the page you linked is a joke. Let's say I have a B.S. in computer science. I've never studied the climate. Never published a paper on it. But I don't believe in global warming. My opinion "counts" on this petition because I have a B.S.
I actually supported tallrick because you suggested that he might just be being silly.
By the way, did you mean foosball or football? I don't play either but I like to watch football. I like low scoring games where the players exhale less CO2, of course.
Well, I at least thank you for a response! I was serious; I actually thought tallrick was trying to be facetious.
And I meant foosball, as in the movie "Waterboy"...just kidding, because I don't care for football. Now you're thinking like a Greener with the low-CO2 emissions - if we breathe less, we're on our way to working things out! Good for you!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Foosball should be illegal!!!
