Originally Posted By DAR <<Yes, as has been repeatedly said, there is simply consensus, with a vast majority, and all noted organizations concurring in this. That does not mean that EVERYONE is going to feel that way, however, even the Bush run EPA says global warming is happening.>> Once again you and few others fail to grasp the concept that we need to continue research and study of this. You just want pack it up and say okay global warming is happening, now let's just change our lifestyles. We can still do that. I want to have scientists on both sides continue their research because we are not even close to having all the answers.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This has been charted and measured. And it is NOTHING like what we see is going on today.> Really? Do you know of an article that appeared in a peer reviewed scientific publication that says that? I'd like to read it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The consensus is that we should be reducing our carbon output. How we do that is up for debate of course, but the consensus is that we need to reduce.>> <Ah. When you used the word "steps" I thought there might have been something a bit more specific agreed upon than I was aware of. My suggestion for reducing carbon output would be for everyone who was truly concerned about global warming to stop exhaling it.> Nice. Confuses something we have no control over with things we do have control over. AND snarky too.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Confuses something we have no control over with things we do have control over. AND snarky too.> I'll admit to the snarkiness, but not to confusion. I'm quite sure that if the global warming alarmists were really, really, really concerned about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they could control their exhaling.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And here we see the seriousness that Doug has actually devoted to this issue.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And here we see the seriousness that Doug has actually devoted to this issue.> I thought it was only the right that saw things in black and white. One can say things both humorous and serious on the same subject.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Once again you and few others fail to grasp the concept that we need to continue research and study of this." Who said we shouldn't? Of course we need to continue to study it. But you're simply not going to see a radical turnaround in thinking because it's been studied for a long time now, and as I said, it's been pretty conclusive. "I want to have scientists on both sides " You're not understanding what is said to you. There basically are no credible scientists on the other side at this point.
Originally Posted By DAR <<You're not understanding what is said to you. There basically are no credible scientists on the other side at this point.>> Oh that's right because they're not "peer reviewed". Who's to say in 100 years all the "peer reviewed" scientists won't be wrong. Just because you go along with the majority doesn't always make it right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There basically are no credible scientists on the other side at this point.> There are no credible scientists saying that global warming has not occurred. There are plenty of credible scientists who are still uncertain about why it is happening, and haven't decided what is the best way to mitigate it.
Originally Posted By jonvn See, folks, even this guy says global warming (or climate change) is happening. That's one little peg removed from the board, anyway. The IPCC, however, recently released a report stating that with a 90% measure of certainty that it's human in orgin. They are the people that have the most knowledge on the subject. Really, there just is not really any credible talk stating otherwise. There has been. But over the years, as we learn more, we get closer to the truth.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The IPCC, however, recently released a report stating that with a 90% measure of certainty that it's human in orgin.> Actually, they said, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." I don't believe they defined what percentage "most" is. Does that mean they're 90% certain human activity has caused 90% of global warming, or that they're 90% certain human activity has caused 60% of global warming? And does the IPCC report represent a consensus of scientists? Some people say yes, some people say no.
Originally Posted By jonvn There is a 90% level of certainty that increases in global temperatures is driven by human created greenhouse gasses. Here is a quote: “The word unequivocal is the key message of this report,†said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, adding that those who have doubts about the role of humans in driving the climate “can no longer ignore the evidenceâ€. Here is a summary of the report: <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11088" target="_blank">http://environment.newscientis t.com/article/dn11088</a> Does it represent a consensus? This one report? This one report is the work of 1200 people in 40 countries, who wrote and reviewed it. The IPCC is considered the gold standard for climate issues. Aside from that, you have reports from every other scientific organization around the world. Again, they all are in basic agreement. Now some may say, well it's not 100%. Well, 90% is about as close as you can get. But, note that they are leaving open room to be wrong! There is the 10% chance they are wrong. You know what else has a 10% chance? Survival rates from pancreatic cancer. It is basically the fault of our industries and that's the best we know. If that changes, then that's even scarier, and it is not our doing, that's even scarier, because we don't have any options at all. It's a lot better for it to be caused by our greenhouse gas emissions than the sun getting hotter or whatever else has been suggested. We can stop pumping poison into the air, we can't control the orbit of the Earth or the heat of the Sun.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The IPCC is considered the gold standard for climate issues.> According to everyone who agrees with them. This guy says otherwise - <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16 948233/site/newsweek/</a> <Aside from that, you have reports from every other scientific organization around the world. Again, they all are in basic agreement.> Again, all agree that the temperature has gone up slightly, and that human activity is a likely cause. Other than that, however, there is a lot of debate.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 <<According to everyone who agrees with them. This guy says otherwise - <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16</a> 948233/site/newsweek/>> Thanks. I think I will reserve the right to be cautiously skeptical.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 As a side note -- anyone remember the millenium bug? Supposedly nuclear bombs were going to explode because they could not figure out what time it was? There were doomsayers that preached how horrible it was going to be. Then there were those of us who knew how computers were going to act. Yes, the millinium bug will cause a few problems. A few records here and there will get screwed up, adjustments will have to be made, and it will be a bit of a pain for some. But overall, it won't be a major catastrophe. Anyways, that's just the way I'm viewing the global warming thing for now. I remember watching nature shows about 15 years ago saying that so many thousands of acres of rain-forest were diappearing every hour. I was smart enough to use my calculator and figured at that rate the rainforest would be gone in 9 months! Why do they need to exaggerate, don't they realize they do more harm than good? No, the ends do not justify the means if you cause open-minded people to tune you out.
Originally Posted By jonvn Gee...newsweek. So, aside from the fact that "this guy" whoever it is, is not reporting in a peer reviewed journal, is there a reason to listen to him? No. There is not. He's a professor of ECONOMICS. What a joke. "anyone remember the millenium bug?" Yes. Do you know how hard people worked to make sure that nothing bad happened? Very few things did happen. It was a bit over the top. But there was a great deal of work that went into making sure that nothing did happen.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << But there was a great deal of work that went into making sure that nothing did happen. >> Exactly. Action was taken. The problem was largely averted. In contrast to now, where we have a group of people advocating to do absolutely nothing with the hope of averting an impending global disaster through total inaction and denial. I was responsible for the LAN at my workplace at the time of the millenium -- we worked a lot of late nights before that event to ensure nothing happened, and there were billions of dollars spent by government and industry during that time. It is one of the reasons cited for the global economic slowdown just prior to the millenium -- billions of dollars invested to fix a problem that could have been invested elsewhere if computer networks had been designed to meet the millenium challenge in the first place.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, aside from the fact that "this guy" whoever it is, is not reporting in a peer reviewed journal, is there a reason to listen to him?> Perhaps because he was a member of the IPCC.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Oh, I do agree that action should be taken. The sooner we get off the depedency of fossil fuels the better -- for several reasons. However, let's not cry foul when I don't get off my rear immediately and change my entire lifestyle because the worls is going to end in 20 years. The same crowd that is feeding me this line was picketing the nuclear power plant I was working at 20 years ago. I've been around long enough not to take every group as serious as the other.
