You want to wait 1000 years just to be absolutely shure you have enough data ? Better safe than sorry
Jeremy, please re-read the quoted material above, which seems to me at the very least germane to our discussion, put out by some fairly bright boys, and worthy of consideration; please also see the 80+ articles in the journal used by Tbarr to make his point, Science, which, as I said, shows the evidence that it is very much man-made, greenhouse gases that have had the effects spoken of. We very much can control global warming, as we can control pollution; if we are to believe the work of the preponderance of scientists in the field today. You keep saying "it is not man-made," but I don't see any evidence you have to support your position, nor to contradict the work and science of the Oxford, Yale, Berkeley scientists I earlier mentioned (among countless others).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
There are no doubt of that man makes greenhouse gasses. But the point of the sceptics and others is that the amount of greenhouse gasses are so small compared to the amount that the nature make. And its true, the nature makes more greenhouse gasses than the man, but that is what is called balance. Man are destroying the balance with its relative small amout of greenhouse gasses. An example of that small amouts of stuff destroy balance its alcohol in the human body. Relatively tiny amounts and you cannot walk.
Thank you, Lorien. This is useful, and worthy of looking at. For the record, I am not an "envirowacko" who "gets off on complaining." I don't know many who are, truthfully. The many I know who are concerned are concerned because we find no greater folly than to pursue man's designs, only to take a crap on the only system we have to sustain ourselves. I would love to find out other than I have so far. I would love to believe my childrens' ecosystem is secure. And I am receptive to any science that convincingly shows one way or the other.
My problem with "global warming" is that it is too political. Its hard to tell where the lies (exagerations) end and where the truth begins. If it were purely a scientific endeavour, we'd have the truth, but since everyone has their own political angle to it; its hard to separate fact from fiction.
Well. I stopped dumping nuclear waste on my planets a year or so ago. I stopped strip mining by backyard too. Simply not profitable anymore.
I think a good start would be to presume there are many honorable people who sincerely want to get to the answer - on either "side." I'd say what you linked to is the way in; as are the many articles I've read on the subject.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think many are involved for purely political reasons. Means to an end.
I dont think its getting political if we dont let it be just that. Like myself, I am no scientist, I am reading and asking myself, is it possible that the climate change are man made ? Then I come to the conclusion that it is at least possible. And if its possible, the next thing for me would be to not take the chance to give this world to the next generation in a more worse shape than we have to.
Well, as login posts above, that isn't the case with me, at least. I see no utility in presuming so, but then I never do. I could personally care less what anyone's political agenda is - what is the science behind their view? What I do object to is such a presumption for example, that precludes bothering to look into the science behind what some such as myself find compelling and what Kalvin (for one) calls "envirowhacko" with zero data or scientific backup. Rather than leaping to the first name-calling one can conjure up, as Kalvin has done, I think we would do better to look at the science and draw conclusions therein, as login has said and as I agree. Which is why I am interested in reading your articles and looking at the data more deeply. It doesn't square with what I have read, but it is approached scientifically, and merits an honorable look.
Read the UN link I posted. the first independent article, I think. It makes no matter whether you or login have an agenda. The people that drive the issue have the agenda.
Lorien, I am not sure if you're actually reading what I am saying: I couldn't care less whether anyone has an agenda. Is raw data a "political force?" Is a valid climatological theory, one that refutes it, or one that poses a credible alternative theory decidedly "leftist" or "rightist?" Personally, I believe that the countless scientists that promulgate the majority view are doing what scientists typically do - investigating, and being damn careful to make sure what they pose is credible, else they open themselves up to censure (if you want an example, see the history of Michael Bellisles, renowned historian, and the "Arming America" scandal. I believe Bellisles is now living in a quiet boil in London). But again, it is all utterly irrelevant what "agenda" if any exists. I ask you - why do you care what anyone believes politically - what does their science say?
I am reading it, and I understand your point. But, face reality. Whenever people talk about climate change, do they ever talk science - or do they give anecdotal evidence that can be explained by many different theories. Everyone knows science is boring and no one wants to think about the issue that deeply anyways, so its always scare tactics. New york is supposed to be underwater right now, according to environmentalists 20 years ago. Or the world should be an iceberg according to environmentalists 30 years ago. The science is not conclusive, either way. Someone can post up a story saying "the icecaps will melt in 30 years" I can post up another story saying the icecaps are growing. Conclusion jumping before all the data is available, understood, or even analyzed for accuracy is the rage.
OK. But I am very much facing reality; you posted a link to a couple of articles written by folks with a contrary view, and I enter into their view with an open and probing mind. Christopher Monckton, for example, posts science, that can be tested, peer-reviewed, challenged, ultimately, proved or disproved, at least probabilistically. The same can be said for the folks of my first post - again, these are not -types, they are Oxford mathematicians, Yale physicists, etc. All they talk is science. They are not posing "anecdotal" anything, but rather are putting their scholarly standing on the line to post their research. I can't know, of course - but you're latest line, "face reality," directly speaks to what I am saying. With KalvinB's "envirowackos," there seems to be a working presumption that anyone whose conclusions differ are part of "a crowd." I disagree, but again, with respect, I say - why do you, or anyone, care? Does that "crowd" post good science, or does it not? I'd say, one should make one's conclusions accordingly.
northpointaiki, yes, I have looked at the articles you posted. But I also watched an interesting program on Discovery a few weeks ago that dealt with this issue and explored the fact that the oceans tend to naturally cause the bulk of all global warming. This coupled with natural occurences such as asteroids, and other outside factors affecting the earth. I do my part, and have my entire house on fluorescent lighting. Well everything except for my Christmas lights. I saw another program on Discovery that showed that simply adding one fluorescent bulb in your house cuts about 50 tons of carbon output per year. I started doing the same at my office, starting with the lights in my office. I'm not just talking about overhead lighting and fluorescent tube lights, but lamps, exterior lights and anything I can find. They are not that expensive, use far less energy and last longer. Imagine if everyone in the world changed out just one light in their home or office for fluorescent. I'm no tree hugger, but I do care quite a bit about the environment and do what I can to reduce waste and pollution. That much I have control over. GC is a naturally occuring phenomenon and I have no control over that.
No one would want to live anywhere near the US coast after watching "The Inconvenient Truth!" Those things down the South Pole are looking pretty fragile at the moment. If they go down then look out world. One of them means 20 foot rise of the oceans. Two of them 40 feet. 40 FEET higher man! That would wipe out most islands in the world and 90% of Australia's population (most live near the coast). It's scary stuff indeed! Col
I remember back in 1989, Ted Danson said the planet would be uninhabitable in 10 years. I don't think the world ended in 1999, did it? January 2006, Gore said that we had 10 years or the planet would become uninhabitable. Will we have this same statement in 2020? 2020 is the predicted year for many environmental calamities, plus it comes off the tongue so easily! With a little luck, I'm sure we'll get a reprieve until 2030 (10 years until our planet becomes uninhabitable!)
No, but Ted did lose his hair. Gore is starting to go bald too.. Well, Gore did invent the interent, so he might have some merrit.