Thadius
Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Evening all,
Thanks for kindling an interest in doing some research on the topic. As of now I am still unconvinced that humans are responsible, not convinced that we aren't responsible either. Some of the leading minds out there seem to be in the same boat.
quote:
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006 )
quote:
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006)
quote:
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." "There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)
quote:
Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007)
quote:
William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more." (Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005)
Anyways, that is just a sampling of various professors and scientists out there, I know there are just as many quotes going the opposite way, but those can be found anywhere.
To subminister,
quote:
On one final common sense line, as satisfying as it may be to poke holes in the arguments of someone you disagree with, why not accept that even if global warming estimations are exaggeration, we will be OUT of oil in 50 years (this is an estimate, as there is some contention about how much is left and how quickly we will use it), and will have to come up with alternative energy sources, if not now, then? I don't think anyone questions THAT, do they? Now tell me, in a global economy that is oil-driven, would you rather slowly develop alternatives and be able to come up with effective and efficient ones, or would you rather be the person who shows up to the gas pump in 2057 only to hear the pimply-faced employee say, "Sorry, just sold the last gallon?" That's an inconvenience for you in that moment, but it will spell the collapse of our economy if we don't act, and soon.
Not to hijack this to far. I do agree that we need to look at alternatives and cleaner fuels. I just look at what is there right now and think that bio-diesle might be the best of them. The trouble with the hydrogen cars will be using them in colder climates, water vapor equals quick freezing ice... just picture rush hour in any northern city during Nov-Feb. Going with the ethanol or corn based fuels might be a good alternative when it comes to fuel, but what does that do to the food side of things... acreage for feed (human and animal) will be drasticly cut back for the higher paying fuel industries. Thus pushing prices of those agricultural product higher...
Well that is just a few thoughts on it, hope it made a bit of sense.
I wish you well,
Thadius
_____________________________
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb
|
RE: Are people really that uneducated? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread