Who was it said the planet was cooling?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: The Crest Re-Opens!
Next: Solstice Party
From: BrianNZ on 9 Dec 2009 23:30 don (Calgary) wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:27:56 -0700, "Bob Myers" > <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote: > >> don (Calgary) wrote: >>> In fact more and more of the world's scientists are questioning the >>> validity of the science. The US Senate Minority report of 2007 listed >>> 450 prominent scientists, many of the them current and former IPCC >>> scientists, who are questioning the basic science behind the global >>> warming theories. The report was updated in 2009 and I believe over >>> 700 scientists are now expressing similar concerns. >> Let' see - just what fraction of that population that call themselves >> "scientists" do you think the number "700" represents? > > Well it represents 700 more than there was five years ago. > > This issue is not a popularity contest. It's not a matter of you line > up your experts on one side of the wall and I'll line up mine on the > other. The point here is there are well respected members of the > scientific community who are questioning the science supporting the > global warming theory. > >> Secondly, and as I believe Pete was pointing out in the first place - >> the "basic science behind the global warming theories" is not really >> the primary concern here (since those basically have to do with the >> ever-popular "is mankind to blame?" question). > > Well if we are being asked to pay a large financial penalty for our > prior production of greenhouse gasses and place our economy and basic > way of life in jeopardy in an effort to solve global warming by > reducing our production of greenhouse gasses, I think the question of > the cause is important. > >> Regardless of the >> theories which attempt to explain it, the observed fact is - as was >> correctly pointed out - that the Earth IS warming, and Bad Things >> (such as the ice caps and glaciers receding, etc.) are in fact >> happening. Ya see, that's what we in the science end of things >> note as the difference between "hypotheses" and "theories" on the >> one hand, and "observed facts" on the other. The theories that >> attempt to explain these particular observations have nothing at >> all to do with the fact that the observations themselves are real, and >> in a very practical sense are important only so far as they help to >> answer the question, "is there anything we can do about this?" >> > I guess I do not blindly accept bad things will happen. Are you > suggesting nothing good will come from the planet being slightly > warmer? Everything will be bad. There is all this talk of sea levels rising due to the melted water, flooding some sand-bar islands and wrecking coastal areas.....<moving into 'what-if' land>.....what if the melted water ended up as clouds due to the warmer temperatures and evaporation instead of in the oceans? Would there be rain in what are today deserts? Would more rain and warmer temps be better for food production to end starvation? Or would the clouds block the sun and start a 'cooling cycle'? > > Not too far from where I live I can walk up to one of those receding > glaciers. As you walk from the road,there are markers in the ground > denoting where the glacier was at various points in time since the > turn of the last century. It is interesting to see the rate of > recession is not consistent, nor has it significantly accelerated in > the last two decades. I know it is but one example and may not > represent glaciers in other corners of the world, but it is one I can > see and touch. > > Aside from all that, there is a growing sentiment in the scientific > community that the link between man made greenhouse gasses and global > warming may not be the cause and effect the media has made it out to > be. > > As for if there is anything we can do about it. Please tell me how > transferring large volumes of cash, unconditionally, from developed > nations like Canada and the US, to undeveloped nations, will serve to > lower the temperature of this planet. I would like to hear someone > make that connection. > > Then enlighten me as to just what fraction of the population that call > themselves scientists, who are currently gathering in Copenhagen, and > are trying to convince the leaders of the free world that is exactly > what they have to do to save the planet. > > Considering the actions they are advocating, I have to question their > motives.
From: don (Calgary) on 9 Dec 2009 23:30 On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:45:25 -0500, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >So is China a "developed" country or a "developing" country under >Copenhagen? Everything I have read has identified China as a developing country. Further China is lobbying for deep cuts in GG production in the US and other developed countries, and reductions in GG intensities in China. That is a subtle but important distinction.
From: J. Clarke on 9 Dec 2009 23:09 Bob Myers wrote: > don (Calgary) wrote: >> In fact more and more of the world's scientists are questioning the >> validity of the science. The US Senate Minority report of 2007 listed >> 450 prominent scientists, many of the them current and former IPCC >> scientists, who are questioning the basic science behind the global >> warming theories. The report was updated in 2009 and I believe over >> 700 scientists are now expressing similar concerns. > > Let' see - just what fraction of that population that call themselves > "scientists" do you think the number "700" represents? Wrong question. Biochemists, particle physicists, and the like are all "scientists" but none of them have any special qualifications that make them experts in climatology. What percentage of actual working climatologists does 700 represent? And how does that compare to the number of actual working climatologists on the global warming bandwagon? > Secondly, and as I believe Pete was pointing out in the first place - > the "basic science behind the global warming theories" is not really > the primary concern here (since those basically have to do with the > ever-popular "is mankind to blame?" question). Regardless of the > theories which attempt to explain it, the observed fact is - as was > correctly pointed out - that the Earth IS warming, and Bad Things > (such as the ice caps and glaciers receding, etc.) are in fact > happening. How are these "Bad Things"? They've happened before and nothing particularly terrible has resulted. > Ya see, that's what we in the science end of things > note as the difference between "hypotheses" and "theories" on the > one hand, and "observed facts" on the other. The theories that > attempt to explain these particular observations have nothing at > all to do with the fact that the observations themselves are real, and > in a very practical sense are important only so far as they help to > answer the question, "is there anything we can do about this?" You see, the problem is not that they are asking "is there anything we can do about this", the problem is that they are saying "this is what we _must_ do about this", and then the politicians are taking that and using it as an excuse for all sorts of ineffective but destructive action, like the Kyoto Accord that was going to tax the bejeezus out of the US while allowing China to produce all the CO2 they want to.
From: don (Calgary) on 9 Dec 2009 23:36 On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:09:57 -0500, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >You see, the problem is not that they are asking "is there anything we can >do about this", the problem is that they are saying "this is what we _must_ >do about this", and then the politicians are taking that and using it as an >excuse for all sorts of ineffective but destructive action, like the Kyoto >Accord that was going to tax the bejeezus out of the US while allowing China >to produce all the CO2 they want to. While I agree with most of what you are saying Kyoto had nothing to do with taxing the US. It was all about reducing GG production. Granted reducing GG production to 6% below 1990 levels would have a life changing impact on citizens of your country, it was not about direct taxation. Now Copenhagen is far more brazen about it. Now it is all about the money. And they want yours.
From: Outback Jon on 9 Dec 2009 23:36
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote: > On Dec 8, 12:53 pm, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > >> FYI... There is a recent discovery that may make the Marianas Trench the >> second deepest place on earth. > > Cite ? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/ :) -- "Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon(a)g.no.sp.am.mail.com http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 32 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 |