An inconvenient truth

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't know and neither do you. Unfortunately the climate scientists don't either, apparently.

Why talk like George Jr. It is well understood that man has contributed to massive environmental change. Only an ostrich would deny that fact. The serious questions are how fast, and how destructive. Nowhere do those questions even imply what was posted and what George Jr lies to misrepresent. Mankind is without a doubt causing climate change. Furthermore, many solutions exist to advert so much of man's contribution. Somehow extremists spin that into 'we don't know if global warming exists'. That spin is akin to Saddam's WMDs - a lie. We know global warming exists AND we know mankind is contributing to the problem.

Where do we get the most bang for the buck? Many solutions from fifteen pie slices are possibilities we must attempt or study also for so many other reasons - ie thermodynamic efficiencies. But those same technologies that would also make America a future world leader are stifled by political extremists with an MBA attitude towards innovation. For example, use CO2 to backfill oil wells. Reduce the massive and wasteful energy consumption in buildings - because even gasoline at $3 per gallon is so ridiculously cheap as to discourage smarter solutions (and no, I did not even imply raising the price of gas - as an extremist would proclaim I said spin more lies and confusion).

You are screaming that a ship is sinking - therefore we should not do anything. Innovators instead say, "Maybe we should first close the water tight doors between compartments". Many of the solutions are that simple. Then you say, "Why? We are not really sinking?" Which is it?

Those who address global warming will have the new jobs and future wealth for all other nations dependent on those innovations. Global warming is also a new, future, and necessary industry - literally meaning new innovative buildings, machines, and products. Just another point that xoxoxoBruce ignores along with a reasoning that says, "Nobody in the Cellar can tell me exactly what we must do; therefore no solutions will exist." One who was smarter said

I don't deny we are contributing, maybe significantly, but how much and what can we do to make a significant improvement?

If science and logic was being discussed, then we would be quantifying how fast and how destructive. But that means science, innovation, jobs for people who are smart at the expense of dumb extremists. So what did the mental midget president do? Cancels innovation - from quantum physics and the Hubble Space Telescope. Canceled something like nine satellites that would better answer those global warming questions - for George Jr's legacy - a Man on Mars. The legacy of anyone who opposes a reality called global warming is 'ostrich'. Same ostrich now denies the US is attacked every 15 minutes in Iraq is somehow an expert on global warming?

George Jr and others just as anti-American would even stifle research to deny a reality - Global Warming. xoxoxoBruce - you would locate yourself with those fools? Apparently. Half your posts are, "we can't do anything and therefore should not try". Classic logic from an MBA named George.

[bluesdave]

Bruce, you seem to think that those involved in climate research are blaming you personally. That is not the case. There are filing cabinets bulging with scientific research, from around the world, that in total, point to man's involvement. Are you saying we should throw this research away, and just forget the whole thing (hoping that the problem will go away)?

As I said once before, you want engineering answers, and you are simply not going to get them. Unfortunately this fuels your pseudo-religious anti greenhouse beliefs.

I understand exactly the points you are making. Unfortunately there is no easy means of explaining how the research points to man. You have to process each piece of research, correlate them, and then draw conclusions. Often the research uses computer models with real data acting as the seed. I have to concede that sometimes the models get it wrong, but they are being improved constantly. It is unlikely that we will ever get to the point where we will have an equation that says: x=y, thus satisfying your engineering needs.

I know that you are a good man, and that you want answers, and that deep down you really want to take an active role in helping the planet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Unfortunately this fuels your pseudo-religious anti greenhouse beliefs.

wtf? Pseudo-religious? Believing the earth has it's own cycles and balance is pseudo-religious? Anti-greenhouse? What the hell is that?

I understand Bush is keeping the data in all those bulging file cabinets from being correlated, just to spite tw, but....

When umpteen dozen sources are saying there is a nebulous problem and proffering solutions they admit won't solve the problem, but might help the problem, and at least won't hurt the problem......that's pseudo religious.

The media shills that pass the information to the public are, writing/broadcasting stories at high volume with damn little substance, like a TV weatherman. Sideshow barkers competing for my attention.

Personally I'm tired of "Scientists say this" and "Researchers say that"..... bits and pieces that may be parallel but don't logically fit together and can't be quantified. Even if I take it on faith they are right, How am I expected to put it all together, translate into positive action?
Just saying, have no impact on the Earth is not only impossible..... it's Voodoo ecology.

Do something, do something! ................Do What???
Telling me, we(collective) should reduce our impact(vague) on Global warming, is worse than useless, it's tedious.
It just makes me say, Ho-hum, that old saw again, I'll wait for the "film at 11".....the meat, the details. But the details never come.

I don't feel I'm being personally blamed for Global warming, however I don't deny being part of the problem. That said, speaking only for myself, without being afforded some concrete solutions, I will continue to be...... I'm too old and jaded to run around in circles with no benefit.

[Undertoad]

- promote the intelligence of humanity
- promote the education of science
- preserve and protect civilization world-wide, so that productive ideas are adopted and shared by all

That's my agenda and I'm stickin to it.

[Hippikos]

I am the same sceptical guy as Bruce here. It's not a proven fact that the current global warming is caused by man. Climate changes have been around the last 4,5 billion years. As for warming up of the Earth the last 300 years, I can remember the hysterica in the 70's about the start of a new ice age. Well there ya go.

Never the less I am in favor of conserving earth recourses as there is an end to that, and I am in favor of clean air if it was only for the health of the people.

Again, global warming statistics are mostly fed by cherry picked statistics, sensation sensitive tabloid journalists and producers of scare mongering films such as "The Day After Tomorrow". My 13 year old daughter saw this movie and is now afraid our low country will be flooded next year....

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's as clear as mud, but it covers the ground.

I just noticed Hippikos slipped in between UT and myself.
It was UT's credo I was referring to.

[headsplice]

Actually, I was listening to NPR the other day(On The Media's segment called, "Mad Science"[that's an audio link, btw]), and non-scientific Americans are pretty much the only folks who don't believe that global warming is a serious (EDIT) man-made problem. There's not any major scientific disagreement anymore, just industry front groups.

[Flint]

I read Popular Science, Discover, and Scientific American fairly regularly, and I don't recall reading of any supposed debate over Global Warming any more than the supposed debate over Intelligent Design. The dreaded Liberal Media Conspiracy has wrapped its insidious tentacles around science itself!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Actually, I was listening to NPR the other day(On The Media's segment called, "Mad Science"[that's an audio link, btw]), and non-scientific Americans are pretty much the only folks who don't believe that global warming is a serious (EDIT) man-made problem. There's not any major scientific disagreement anymore, just industry front groups.

See, it's broad statements like that, (the media, not headsplice), that make me nuts. There is obviously more to it, but when they blatantly lie like that how can I believe anything they say.

So they don't believe the glaciers melted in Ohio thousands of years ago and it's been warming ever since? And it's a man-made problem they can't quantify?
Seems to me it would be easy to quantify if there was nothing but man involved and the natural state was stable......but then the glaciers wouldn't have melted would they? When they did melt, there wasn't enough people in the entire world to make them melt, if every single person pissed on them.

Now we have enough people and technology to help it along quite nicely but to say it's man made is ridiculous.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now we have enough people and technology to help it along quite nicely but to say it's man made is ridiculous.

Depends on how you define Global Warming. Is it the total or just our "help" ...? (Seriously, are people even talking about the same thing?)

[headsplice]

They (climatologists) can quantify the change (or rather, the rate of change of temperature, which is the real worry). I'm not sure about the attribution, but I'm pretty sure that they can make correllational proofs. I'll see what I can find on the intarnetwebs.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I understand Bush is keeping the data in all those bulging file cabinets from being correlated, just to spite tw, but....

You do know that the White House now has government science papers on global warming rewritten by White House lawyers. That has been reported separately by so many news services. 60 Minutes even provided the scientists original paper and the handwritten changes by the White House lawyer.

Why would the White House intentionally have lawyers rewrite science papers? xoxoxoBruce - it is called propaganda and you are falling for it. Global warming exists even though George Jr said it does not. Mankind is contributing to global warming as has been published in virtually every major and responsible science publication. Furthermore, it is necessary for Project for a New American Century and other extremists to deny such realities - as they also denied ozone depletion and the need for environmental restrictions on automobiles. Or are you going to tell us that environmental laws for autos were also unnecessary?

White House has a political agenda - which means anti-American. Why do you so hate America as to believe science promoted by lawyers?

Remember what those who deny global warming also said. They said torture, international kidnapping, wiretapping without judicial review, war with China over a silly spy plane, and six C-130s to rescue 1 million tsunami victims is sufficient - this to them is good. Would you align yourself with such people? You are only using logic that also said Saddam had WMDs.

[Hippikos]

Remember what those who deny global warming also said.

Nobody denies that average air temperature raised 0,4 degree the last 30/40 years, but the debate is about whether it is caused by man.

There's another thing, air temperature varies much more than water or ground temperature. I've never seen statistics with these parameters?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Nobody denies that average air temperature raised 0,4 degree the last 30/40 years, but the debate is about whether it is caused by man.

George Jr repeatedly declared that global warming did not exist. When polls suggested it was not working, then George Jr changed. George Jr said global warming exists, but that mankind could do nothing about it. Say anything to promote a political agenda - even deny science.

Meanwhile, the man who makes administration decisions - Cheney - continued saying global warming does not exist.

The debate is not whether man contributes. That debate ended in an obvious conclusion. The question is how much and how bad. To impede a solution, George Jr supporters even had science papers rewritten by lawyers to promote myths that we even see here. Some still insist that man is not complicit - when a chart for the past 400,000 years demonstrates how obvious the problem is.

But again, once we eliminate the politics - cut out propaganda from George Jr and other liars - the question is simply how much and how destructive. Yes, George Jr repeatedly insisted that global warming does not exist.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why would the White House intentionally have lawyers rewrite science papers? xoxoxoBruce - it is called propaganda and you are falling for it.

tw, you are not allowed to accuse me of "falling for it" or anything else, until you have read with comprehension, what I wrote.

1 - Global warming is part of a warming /cooling cycle that's been going on forever.
2 - Every time it's happened it has had a profound, if not devastating, effect on the flora & fauna.
3 - This time, human activity influences the natural cycle, but we don't know how much.... it has not been quantified.
4 - We don't know if human activities just speed up the cycle or will also cause the maximum to be more extreme.
5 - We^^ I, don't know what can be done about it, if anything, that's not a futile, feel good, plan.

These are my conclusions. If you have issue with them, care to debate them, you have the right...nay, civic duty....to do so.
But, that said, stick to the point, please. Bush and Cheney, while asshats, have nothing to do with my conclusions.