An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[Pan]

Originally Posted by andresont

I am not arguing global worming, as I stated before all the planets in our solar system are worming up.
What I am saying is that humans are not the main reason for it.
We can argue until the cosmic cows come home about the reasons and who is paying for what, but why don’t we try to come up with solution rather then feeding our own ego trying to prove our point?

Perhaps alternative energy is a good way to go?


~~~

To fix something you generellay need to know what is causing the problem, you must know how and why something is doing whatever it is it is doing. It would be like taking viagra for a headache....you need to think about things before (as you put it it something about ego's) attack the problem or you could at the least do no good or make it a lot worse. If it is a naturally occuring happenstance that the world is getting warmer, through no fault of our own, then why fix it? it's occuring naturally is it not? If humans are casuing it , we should surely wish to know would we not? The problem with humans are, we are human, no one, not one of us as the intellect to be able to comprehend the nature of even a rock, let alone the universe, which seems to be why everytime we do one thing, we ruin 20 others. Everything is interconnected wether we like it or not, everything effects everything else. Not giving this as a reason to stop doing things, just think about what we are doing...deeply, change on this front would require a serious shift in the way we humans think of ourselves. We look at the world and everything as ours, not as we should just simply the most indusrtious animal on the planet, one of millions and millions of species, not the ONLY one. We need a shift in huiman conciousness or nothig will matter anymore. No not religious.... For example why until modern humans, did only a very few local natives live in arizona? NO WATER. Only enough lived there able to be supported by the little water that was there. Along comes modern humanity and builds cities there, and in Nevada...pump in water casue there is none there, then complains how hard it is to live there. People need some personally accountability as well. Some people, honestly do not have the bloody intellligence to take on such matters, and these are the people we need to worry about, because as long as they have there cell phones, crowded beaches and stupid gadgets THEY are happy, so naturally the world must be going well for everyone. Anyways, my rant is over and i could care less what anyone thinks about it.
I wish more people were capable of having intelligent conversations on certain subject matters ( this is not directed at you btw) I mean in general, as soon as someone hears something they don't like they go into idiot mode, it was like my first year university "survey" courses and all the young kids, all the passion but none of the brains.

[Chad]

The one thing I don't get about people in general, is why no one can understand that the world is in a tenuous balance. There is a reason for every living thing, they all have their own personal niches. Now, humans come along and start to disrupt this balance, remove vast amounts of forests every year but at the same time continue to pump ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere which cannot be fixed fast enough.

Stands to reason to me that we will eventually push over the edge of the balancing act. Personaly, I don't see why we should not decrease emissions. If it was natural, would we not want to prevent it anyways? Can we really handle the massive extinctions? Perhaps doing our part will make the natural process less extreme? If it is natural.

I donno.. I feel sorry for my future grandchildren, all this grandstanding, with no one doing anything about it.

[Quagmire]

I see so these scientist aren't scientists.Two have died so their research is useless? Following that line of reasoning we should dispose of the Theory of Relativity because Albert Einstein died in 1955. One is a crackpot on the fringes,shouldn't a good part of research be on the fringes? How else are we going to progress.Because a person isn't part of the " In Group" doesn't lessen his/her research effort.All that aside as I look into the issue,one idea keeps nagging me.If global warming is largely caused by our emissions of greenhouse gas,then its a problem we should have been looking at 30 years ago.Not because of global warming,but because of air pollution that has been poisoning us since shorty after the beginning of the industrial revolution.If global warming is naturally occurring with minimal input from humanity,then the money and time being spent on proving other wise would be better spent on ways to make our air cleaner to breath.For me global warming in its self is becoming a small issue.Its either the wrong reason to do the right thing,or one more reason in a long list of reasons, to do the right thing.I would rather see the grant money,and money spent in the media to push these agendas,turned toward practical research on ways to clean up our environment.

Almost forgot,here's an interesting survey

http://forecastingprinciples.com/Pub...armAudit31.pdf

[trilinearmipmap]

I am more concerned about the other effects of increased CO2 in our atmosphere, rather than the alleged effects of CO2 on global warming.

One thing reefing has taught me is the importance of CO2/bicarbonate chemistry to our oceans and indeed to all living things.

We are breathing in a much higher concentration of CO2 than we have in the past. How does this affect our health? Could it be the explanation for various illnesses for which the cause has not yet been found? I could list scores of medical problems which have no known cause, maybe the increased CO2 in our atmosphere could be responsible for one or more of these problems.

There are other phenomena in the natural world, for example the widespread loss of amphibian species, which have no clear cause. Could the increase in atmospheric CO2 be a factor here?

I would rather see research money devoted to these issues rather than being flushed down the toilet promoting the global warming "consensus".

[mark]

Not doubting global warming (hey, sort of keeps me employed) but one thing I still have a hard time grasping is how you can tell the temps thousands of years ago by drilling for ice cores.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by mark

Not doubting global warming (hey, sort of keeps me employed) but one thing I still have a hard time grasping is how you can tell the temps thousands of years ago by drilling for ice cores.

This is how:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

[mark]

Originally Posted by pinhead

This is how:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

Like the use of 'inferred' and 'models'.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

I see so these scientist aren't scientists.Two have died so their research is useless?

They never did any research in climatology! Even if they did, their research would not have any current data because one died 5 years ago.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

One is a crackpot on the fringes,shouldn't a good part of research be on the fringes? How else are we going to progress.Because a person isn't part of the " In Group" doesn't lessen his/her research effort.

Research on the fringes - yes. Listening to crackpots - no.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

All that aside as I look into the issue,one idea keeps nagging me.If global warming is largely caused by our emissions of greenhouse gas,then its a problem we should have been looking at 30 years ago.

Maybe it should have been looked at 30 years ago but the Kyoto Accord was signed in 1997.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Almost forgot,here's an interesting survey

http://forecastingprinciples.com/Pub...armAudit31.pdf

forcastingprinciples.com "The Forecasting site seeks to develop a set of principles to guide forecasting for problems in management, operations research, and the social sciences"

These guys aren't climate scientists!!!!

One is from Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University in Melbourne and the other from Wharton Business school

[Quagmire]

Sorry that was the wrong link

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Sorry that was the wrong link

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

"The Heartland Institute is a free-market oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago."

"The Heartland Institute's research covers a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, and the environment."

"The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy. The Institute received over $150,000 from the Phillip Morris over three years from 1997 to 1999"

"The Heartland Institute has received annual donations from Exxon-Mobil in amounts ranging from $100,000 to $200,000."

-WIKIPEDIA