Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Global warming threads usually cause itchy wraths, not wrath evaporation.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Perhaps you could trade in your wrath for a wraith. When you have one of those, people don't laugh as much at your big hairy feet.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Don't make me go all Frodo Baggins on you. I have a can of angst and I'm not afraid to use it!
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1575148.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/opinion/columns/article_1575148.php</a> >>However, the history of temperature gains is not what concerns many skeptics about climate change. Nearly everyone agrees that there has been a rise recently. What is in dispute is (a) how much of an increase is likely to occur in the future; and (b) whether human activities have had, are having, and will have a significant impact on global warming. As to the first question, the evidence is mixed, and the more dire predictions are all based on several computer models combined with other computer models. And, as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out." Here is the first grounds for skepticism. Are those doing the modeling doing it right, and can they actually be trusted to do it right? Is the science and technology on which the modeling is based reliable? Are the scientists reliable? Given that global warming research now constitutes a worldwide industry mostly subsidized by government, including the United Nations, with millions of dollars in grants dispensed, there is understandable concern about whether those involved are stacking the deck in favor of a doomsday scenario. It is often noted by critics of private industry research that profit can corrupt research, but the same is hardly ever noted in mainstream circles about government-subsidized research. Furthermore, skeptics well understand that without a scare, there are fewer funds forthcoming. Government funding requires, ultimately, political support, and such support relies heavily on a concerned, even frightened, constituency. But there is more. In my own community the rangers put warnings out each day about fire hazards, ranging from "moderate" to "extremely high." Interestingly, the "moderate" sign is displayed even if it is pouring rain. In the 10 years I have lived here, there hasn't been a fire. Yet the "extremely high" hazard sign has been displayed (by my assessment) roughly 70 percent of the year. It is a tendency of those assigned to be on the lookout to exaggerate hazards. Vigilance calls for it, as they see their jobs. As to the human factor, here the skeptics are often concerned about what may be dubbed (following a book by that title by Jonathan R.T. Hughes) the governmental habit – if global warming were unrelated to human activity, there isn't a lot that politicians and bureaucrats could promise to do about it. Or, alternatively, if the best approach to encouraging responsible human conduct would be to leave politicians out of the picture and simply deploy various measures banning or containing what economists call negative externalities – bad side effects from normal productive processes – that, too, would leave the politicians out of the picture. And then what would they do, how would they gain the power most of them hunger for? There is, then, a strong probability that doomsday scenarios will be projected by government officials, and all those who work for them, in order to get financial support, appointments to prestigious committees, invited to plush conferences, etc. So when one puts together the lack of solid science and technology behind the claim that global warming is imminent and that human conduct is a significant contributor, skepticism is most reasonable. Or, to put it differently, how reasonable is it to trust politicians about their need for increased powers over the rest of us?<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Wonderful. Another article that has a). Zero science behind it, just an author musing about the possible ulterior motives of other people, and b). zero input from the poster, just a cut and paste. It would be very easy to cut and paste something to refute that written by, you know, acutual scientists and climatologists, but there is LITTLE POINT in making a discussion board simply dueling cut and paste jobs.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It would be very easy to cut and paste something to refute that written by, you know, acutual scientists and climatologists> Would it? It doesn't seem that way to me, since all we seem to get are summaries of what climate alarmists claim are the concensus of climate scientists.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Would it? It doesn't seem that way to me, since all we seem to get are summaries of what climate alarmists claim are the concensus of climate scientists.> Not claim to be - ARE the consensus of climate scientists. As the scientists themselves make clear. The latest report, for instance, represented thousands and indicated 90% certainty.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not claim to be - ARE the consensus of climate scientists. As the scientists themselves make clear. The latest report, for instance, represented thousands and indicated 90% certainty.> See, here's another example of a non-climate scientist claiming they know what a concensus of climate scientists believe.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>X what's going on here?<<< Visit from an old friend. lol. Gee, all I wrote is "that post is gonna get admined", and I got admined.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <See, here's another example of a non-climate scientist claiming they know what a concensus of climate scientists believe.> A consensus (not unanimous) of climate scientists do believe that global warming is occurring and humans are at last partially responsible. You can disagree with them (though it would be helpful if you had any expertise to base the disagreement on), but you can't disagree that that is the solid consensus now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A consensus (not unanimous) of climate scientists do believe that global warming is occurring and humans are at last partially responsible.> That may be true, but can you site a climate scientist saying that?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Douglas- clarify something. Are you at least willing to admit that man, if not the main factor, is "a" factor in contributing to global warming?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you at least willing to admit that man, if not the main factor, is "a" factor in contributing to global warming?> Man is a possible factor.
