Originally Posted By Mr X ＊＊Okay all you climate change deniers, here's a question - what's in it for you?＊＊ This is the part I don't get either. I mean, obviously pollution is a bad, unhealthy thing and it would behoove us all to steward our environment as best we possibly can WHETHER OR NOT climate change is real (seems like it is, I would say, but I would also say it doesn't matter since we should clean up our mess regardless).
Originally Posted By jonvn Not every living republican opposes the idea. Our governor does not, for instance. I think it is just those with a stake in nothing being done, or so they think. Pat Robertson, for example, also feels it's a very serious problem, a Republican. Religious type, too. President Bush is now coming around to understanding the serious nature of the problem. The ones that are left, again, are those who simply refuse to listen to the facts of the matter.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Let me clarify Woody. I didn't say I dont care... meaning the issue of global warming. I do. Deeply. I just don't care who is right regarding what the worse cause of global warming is. And I care very deeply that we fix the problem. Even if Man didn't cause it. We still need to fix it. THAT's why I said "So what." We all have a responsibility to be a good steward to the earth. That means to act in responsible ways, quit wasting resources, and work to solve the problem... scientifically.. not politically. Is that more clear?
Originally Posted By woody Maxxdadd: I did read you correctly. I know you care about GW, but not about the cause of it. How do you fix something with a solution that you don't know or understand? >>And I care very deeply that we fix the problem. Even if Man didn't cause it. We still need to fix it.<< The issue of GW is man caused it. If man didn't cause Global Warming, why do you say we have to be good stewards? Global Warming is a political solution in search of a problem. >>Is that more clear?<< Goodness.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Global Warming is a political solution in search of a problem." No, Woody. It's a real problem that we are causing. We need a political solution that we don't currently have in order to stave off some very serious consequences.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>––Okay all you climate change deniers, here's a question - what's in it for you?–– This is the part I don't get either. I mean, obviously pollution is a bad, unhealthy thing and it would behoove us all to steward our environment as best we possibly can WHETHER OR NOT climate change is real (seems like it is, I would say, but I would also say it doesn't matter since we should clean up our mess regardless).<<< Any poster in this topic who reads this report rather than just having seen it, will readily realize that the report is about skepticism regarding the cause of climate change and what, if anything, we can do about it. Please continue to bash those who deny climate change if you wish. Just realize the report I've posted here is not discussing that topic.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Goodness indeed! A good steward takes care of something, regardless of the cause of forces that would destroy it. A good steward acts on behalf of the entity in need of help. And the Earth needs help, whether global warming came from mankinds wasteful ways, or by an increase of temperature caused by volcanic ash in the high atmosphere. It isn't in need of political posturing. It needs scientific discovery, analysis, and remedy.
Originally Posted By jonvn "will readily realize that the report is about skepticism regarding the cause of climate change and what, if anything, we can do about it." What it's about is an attempt to derail what is an actual problem. It's gone from "It's not true! To we're not doing it!" Meanwhile, science is saying it is true, we are almost certainly causing it, and we need to take care of it now.
Originally Posted By woody >>We need a political solution that we don't currently have in order to stave off some very serious consequences. << It is not conclusive that there are any consequences (especially anything that can be defined as serious or threatening consequences) from the direct result of man-caused Global Warming. To say it will happen without the world doing something about it is bordering on religious fervor.
Originally Posted By woody >>And the Earth needs help, whether global warming came from mankinds wasteful ways, or by an increase of temperature caused by volcanic ash in the high atmosphere.<< We can certainly try capping volcanos as good stewards.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Then sign me up. A lot of good things have happened in this world as the result of religious fervor.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>What it's about is an attempt to derail what is an actual problem.<<< What that is is your opinion and intrepretation. You will not find it in the report.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I have been avoiding this topic for a while, as I find it nearly impossible to find anyone who will engage in a civil discussion. In searching the 'net I didn't realize just how bad it has become: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</a> EXCERPTS: >>Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community. They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change... "Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor. "I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."... Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology... recently claimed: "...lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science." Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "...It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system." More from Nigel Calder: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t ol/news/uk/article1363818.ece</a> EXCERPT: >>When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.<<
Originally Posted By jonvn "It is not conclusive that there are any consequences" Actually, it is pretty conclusive, and we are already seeing the effects, and they are happening at a more rapid rate than what was thought.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What that is is your opinion and intrepretation." No, it's not. It's the opinion of scientific agencies the world over, and thousands upon thousands of scientists in all branches of academia and research who say what I'm saying, including attempts at derailing. "I find it nearly impossible to find anyone who will engage in a civil discussion." Because you are saying stupid things, and it is tiresome to hear quotes from people you obviously can't begin to understand. As far as the Telegraph article is concerned, who cares. There are bad people everywhere. The simple truth is, as has been repeatedly stated, that there is no credible organization that is not stating the same thing. All research points in this direction. And frankly no one is saying the SCIENCE of global warming is settled. The fact that you'd quote that shows you are completely out of it with regards to what is being said here. It is simply incredible how one after another of these people who think there is some debate have so little clue. I guess that's why they are sitting there scratching their head, cocking it to one side and saying "duh..." There is simply no debate on the matter. I'm not even bothering to do it anymore, it's already been said on this board literally at least 30 times. If you can't figure it out by now, what is repeat #31 going to do for you?
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, and btw, Lindzen, the person quoted there in the article is one of the major people who want to claim that this stuff isn't true. Guess what. He gets money from the oil and coal industries. Oh, and he thinks second hand smoke isn't harmful, either. And he smokes. And if you want to actually bother to read rebuttal to his nonsense by actual climate scientists instead of quotes by the Telegraph, you can go here: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/ind ex.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/</a> He is simply not credible, and his statements are refuted. In the meantime, go look up what the word "consensus" means. Have fun. I'm sure your concept of what is happening is far more worthwhile and realistic than what the National Science Foundation, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Research Council, the American Institute of Physics, the American Astronomical SOciety, the Federal CLimate Change Science Program, the Startigraphy COmmission of the Gelogocial Society of London, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, and others have to say about it. THere is NO (READ NONE, as NOT A SINGLE ONE, not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) that rejects human caused effects on climate change. To repeat, there is not one credible scientific body on this planet that states it otherwise. Not one. I'm not even including the major report from the IPCC, which embodies the work of thousands of people the world over. You don't like that one? Go to the rest, and the rest would be ALL OF THEM. ALL. But sure. Engage in the fantasy that there are a bunch of scientist toughs running around with scars on their faces and toothpicks in their mouths. Wearing white lab coats and fedora hats. Threatening others and demanding protection money. That's really what it's all about.
Originally Posted By jonvn OH, and here's a rebuttal I just found regarding the original "400" article: <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/16436/710" target="_blank">http://gristmill.grist.org/sto ry/2007/12/21/16436/710</a> In any case, whoa. 400. I suppose that way outvotes the Union of Concerned Scientists who number 50,000. As I said, drivel.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, and here's another thing to read: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html" target="_blank">http://www.livescience.com/env ironment/070716_gw_notwrong.html</a> Here's a quote. I say this a lot, but since someone else is saying it, I'll repeat it: "Contrary to popular parlance, science can never truly “prove†a theory. Science simply arrives at the best explanation of how the world works. Global warming can no more be “proven†than the theory of continental drift, the theory of evolution or the concept that germs carry diseases. " Really, enough of this gibberish. There is simply no debate, other than what is being foisted by deniers whose pockets are being lined by energy companies.
Originally Posted By woody The list of 400 is considered padded, while the list of 50,000 is not? "UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of 50,000 concerned citizens and scientists across the country." <a href="http://www.climatehotmap.org/organizations.html" target="_blank">http://www.climatehotmap.org/o rganizations.html</a> >>Oh, and he thinks second hand smoke isn't harmful, either. And he smokes.<< Harmful effects of second hand smoke has been debunked AND I don't smoke. Second hand smoke is a mere annoyance; however, there is evidence that it hurts kids, but for adults, it isn't so bad. <a href="http://www.nortonhealthcare.com/specialties/cancer/lung/second-handsmoke.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.nortonhealthcare.co m/specialties/cancer/lung/second-handsmoke.aspx</a>
Originally Posted By woody You too can become a member of Union of Concerned Scientists. https://secure.ga3.org/03/become_a_member "UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students. We are showing that thoughtful action based on the best available science can help safeguard our future. We care, and we get results."
