|
Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/9/2012 9:17:58 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Do you honestly believe that scientists don't understand the age of the earth, continental drift (which, by the way was unknown as recently as 50 years ago) and the fact that things have changed back and forth over the past 4.6 billion years?
Errmmm . . . not what I said. Have another look. I said nothing about 'scientists.'
AGWs refuse to consider the possibilities that (1) we are undergoing a natural, cyclical phenomenon, or (2) some other agency is involved. Well, they don't refuse to consider those possibilities; they set out to bannish them. And those who are sceptical of the received wizdom from the IPCC are attacked and denigrated as heretics. The OP, probably unintentionally and unknowingly [cuz I believe her to be of good heart] repeats the slanderous accusation that the sceptics are 'deniers' - a term emotional charged from its association with those who deny the Jewish Holocaust. Elsewhere I have read that we are ignorant, right-winger, flat-earthers. We are not all in the same category. Some of us simply are dubious of the science employed, the conclusions drawn, and the remedies proposed. Where is the Minority Report in the IPCC? There was 100% agreement? To borrow from Firm above: consensus is not science; it is politics.
quote:
1. Climate is changing faster than can be accounted for by looking at past trends.
2. CO2 concentrations are greater than they were prior to the industrial revolution as a consequence of burning fossil fuels.
3. CO2 is one of the so called 'green house gasses' that WILL trap heat. (if it went for a little CO2, the planet would be basically uninhabitable)
4. It is reasonable to assume that more CO2 in the atmosphere will probably lead to higher temps.
1. depends on how far back you look. There have been previous warming trends. Grapes were grown in England. There is a Vinyard Street in London.
2. CO2 was highly accumulated in the atmosphere during previous interglacials prior to the evolution of man.
3. The major greenhouse gas is H2O not CO2. The major cause of methane CH4 is animal farts. All of these gases travel in cycles within a closed atmosphere. Hence they are subject to dynamic equilibria.
4. Not at all a reasonable or necessary assumption. If you look back at the 130,000 year interglacial shown previously somewhere above you will see that very high levels of CO2 remained in the air for 15,000 years as glaciation took place. That violates the current orthodoxy.
quote:
The problem is that by the time you have definitive evidence of manmade warming, it's too late. Kind of like starting down the mountain in a car that 'probably' has good brakes. By the time you fond out otherwise, it's too late.
What constitutes 'definitive evidence?' The 'science' has already been proclaimed 'settled.' The Kyoto Protocol has already prescribed action that has the potential IMHO to be hazardous to the growing population of earth, especially the impoverished.
quote:
We're going to have to change from fossil carbon based energy eventually anyway. Why not get a head start on the rest of the world before the Chinese decide to kick our ass.
It appears you are concerned more about geo-politics than science.
The proposed alternative fuels are inadequate for a variety of reasons to resolve our future energy needs. Here is a good read of the Pros and Cons Have a look.
Vince. The AGW debate started with scientists. They are the ones with the data.
They don't claim that cycles don't occur as I said in point one. What they claim is that the change is occurring faster than historically.
Just because there are other greenhouse gasses than CO2, are you saying that cutting down on CO2 woun't do any good?
That makes about as much sense as saying "Well, FUKIT. My debt is only partially these credit cards so it makes no sense to quit using them.
Your point about alternative fuels being inadequate. Says WHO?
The only people who say that alternative fuels will never take the place of oil are those who are making a shitload of money off(you guessed it) oil.
It WILL run out some day. When that happens, civilization as we know it is OVAH, finit, Off like a prom dress.
This country IS capable of producing clean, cheap energy if we put our minds to it. When that happens, we will once again be the world leader in science and manufacturing.
Those who want status quo talk about all the money that will be made by those who are supposedly 'connected'. DAMN RIGHT money will be made and it'll be Americans making it. Those on the Right say that the wealthy are job creators. Well, Let's create some goddam energy millionaires and put them to work creating jobs.
I hear whining about the EPA. I have a good friend who employs about 150 people +/- at any given time servicing, installing and fabricating stack scrubbers all over the US.
The worst paid laborer makes about 40K/year and he has crane operators and welders pushing 100+ and none of them are union. Every one of those people is an American. No foreign workers and he's one of the biggest employers in the county.
Green tech creates good paying jobs for Americans.
But oh my God, Al Gore might make a mil so we have to kill it.
|
|
|
|
