Originally Posted By DlandDug I think it's certainly a possibility, though I wouldn't say for sure. Is anyone else at all alarmed over the thought of what we could do if, rather than cutting back on activity, we try other activity to mitigate the problem? I am thinking specifically of Branson's scheme to pay $25 million to anyone who can scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere. It seems to me that every time we try and tamper with existing ecosystems, we just further mess them up. (As far as the most recent link goes, I thought it was a reasonable look at the situation, within the context of what it was. The man is an editorial writer, doing what they do. You know, editorializing.)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Man is a possible factor." All the things we've pumped into the atmosphere since the dawn of industralization and man is a "possible" factor? "Is anyone else at all alarmed over the thought of what we could do if, rather than cutting back on activity, we try other activity to mitigate the problem?" What's the difference?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<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?> The most recent report was thousands of climate scientists saying "this is what we think." However, a very quick google brought this (and others): <a href="http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=36164" target="_blank">http://www.climateark.org/shar ed/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=36164</a> "Mote, a research scientist with the Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington, described findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientific consensus has settled on the notion that people are playing a role in global warming, Mote said. "
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <All the things we've pumped into the atmosphere since the dawn of industralization and man is a "possible" factor?> Yes. The warming that has occurred over the last century, or in centuries past, does not correlate with "all the things we've pumped into the atmosphere".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The most recent report was thousands of climate scientists saying "this is what we think."> No, it wasn't. It was a summary of a report about what climate scientists think. <However, a very quick google brought this (and others):> A report by someone saying what a climate scientist thinks. Again, not an article written by a climate scientist.
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 <<The most recent report was thousands of climate scientists saying "this is what we think.">> <No, it wasn't. It was a summary of a report about what climate scientists think.> What a ridiculous attempt at parsing. <<However, a very quick google brought this (and others):>> <A report by someone saying what a climate scientist thinks. Again, not an article written by a climate scientist.> Yo, Einstein. There was a quote FROM a climate scientist therein. Let's review: I said "A consensus (not unanimous) of climate scientists do believe that global warming is occurring and humans are at least partially responsible." You reply with "That may be true, but can you site a climate scientist saying that?" I then post a link that includes a QUOTE from a climate scientist saying "Scientific consensus has settled on the notion that people are playing a role in global warming." I think you need a prescription for "restless knee-jerk syndrome."
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 DouglasDubh <What a ridiculous attempt at parsing.> Of course it isn't. <There was a quote FROM a climate scientist therein.> There were quotes from the climate scientists in the article, but the statement you presented was not a quote from him. It was a paraphrasing; that's why there weren't any quotation marks around it. <I think you need a prescription for "restless knee-jerk syndrome."> I think you should stop insulting others when they point out your errors.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<What a ridiculous attempt at parsing.>> <Of course it isn't.> Of course it is. <<There was a quote FROM a climate scientist therein.>> <There were quotes from the climate scientists in the article, but the statement you presented was not a quote from him. It was a paraphrasing; that's why there weren't any quotation marks around it.> There were quotes later in the article from the very same person. <<I think you need a prescription for "restless knee-jerk syndrome.">> <I think you should stop insulting others when they point out your errors.> Silly me to assume you could read further into a very short article. Plus, if you can show any evidence that he was paraphrased in any sort of inaccurate way, feel free.
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 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 DouglasDubh <Of course it is.> Again, repetition doesn't make something true. <There were quotes later in the article from the very same person.> Yes, but of course, they didn't say what you wanted them to say. <Silly me to assume you could read further into a very short article.> Again you blame me for your comprehension failures.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Of course it is.>> <Again, repetition doesn't make something true.> Your repetition that it wasn't parsing doesn't make that true. <<There were quotes later in the article from the very same person.>> <Yes, but of course, they didn't say what you wanted them to say.> Oh??? Here are the subsequent quotes. "It's a pretty clear link," Mote said. (referring to human activity and climate change). "But Mote said records going back more than a century all show an overall trend of warmer temperatures. "No matter what starting point you use, you can never get more than 10 percent of temperature stations showing a cooling trend," he said." and " Mote pointed to a dramatic satellite image taken in March 2000, when the Larson B ice shelf broke away from Antarctica and retreated into the sea. "The area that was lost here is bigger than the state of Rhode Island, with its four electoral votes," he quipped." <<Silly me to assume you could read further into a very short article.>> <Again you blame me for your comprehension failures. > It's pretty obvious it's not me who has comprehension failure.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's pretty obvious it's not me who has comprehension failure.> Obvious to you, not to anyone who can comprehend what is written.
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 inlandemporer Huh? This Mote guy's quotes all point to humans having something to do with global warming, which is what Dabob2 said he said. Even after he quoted them verbatim you stick to the idea that Mote wasn't saying that? Boy.
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 DouglasDubh <This Mote guy's quotes all point to humans having something to do with global warming, which is what Dabob2 said he said. Even after he quoted them verbatim you stick to the idea that Mote wasn't saying that?> Sorry, but not all of Mote's quotes point to humans having something to do with global warming. Some did, sure. The trouble is that we often get global warming alarmists putting words in climate scientists mouths, as this reporter did to Mote, and Dabob was unable to tell the difference. But if a human-caused global warming skeptic does the same thing, we're told it meaningless because it's not a climate scientist writing the article, and the article is not appearing in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. It's a clear double standard.
