France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobody_Special

Trouble is, we do have evidence of the extent of the martian icecaps covering about three hundred years.

While we can tell little about the thickness, we can tell a lot about how much they change seasonally and get a good idea how far they extend and retract seasonally.

The fact that visually the icecaps are different in the past several years says that something is happening, especially with about three hundred years of observations to compare it to.


What I see in this thread is a lot of people who really don't understand the science, and so they gather anecdotes or read a few headlines which vaguely describe some thin study which might go against an unpopular theory which has a tremendous amount of supporting evidence... and then leap to the conclusion that it's all wrong.

What I see is typical of the majority in the environmental movement blaming climate change all on mankind and ignoring any evidence that refutes what their scientists say or predict.
 
MechAg94 said:
Yes, and the same pro-GW arguments; arrogantly assuming that all skeptics are ignorant and know nothing of the science
Didn't say anything about ignorance, but whilst you bring it up...
CropCircleWalker said:
The reason they call it greenhouse gas is because it makes stuff grow.
Joshua C said:
Now, personally, if humans do have an effect, I'm more inclined to believe it to be more a result of heat produced by human activities rather than the CO2 put out.
 
People, People....

Look, there is not going to be any agreement on this issue. There are considerable unknowns in this area.

FWIW, roughly .03% of the Earth’s atmosphere is CO2, ostensibly the main culprit for anthropogenic climate change. That is as you see it: the totality of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is approximately one-third of one-tenth of one percent. Of that, the biggest contribution comes from natural sources: oceans, volcanoes, etc. Our contribution, based on fossil fuel use, is somewhere between 10% and 14% (depending upon whom you read) of that .03%. Presuming the higher number, our CO2 contribution accounts for .0042% of the Earth's atmosphere.

I'm no climatologist; my Ph.D. is in psychology, but I have a specialization in statistics. As such, I can tell you this: I have yet to meet a statistician who places trust in the IPCC models as being accurate. Read this for a better take -- http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Now, can we get back to the guns?
 
Of course there's not going to be any agreement on this issue. Especially when people think that analysing the composition of the atmosphere alone is going to provide any useful information about the greenhouse effect.

Questions - how much of the atmosphere is comprised of water vapour and carbon dioxide combined? How much of the greenhouse effect is attributed to both acting together (note - water vapour is a feedback mechanism before that tack is tried)?

If you go and do some reading you'll find that it is possible that both together contribute more than 100% of the greenhouse effect (with water vapour (+clouds) being no more than 90% and again, it's a feedback mechanism). CO2 somewhere between 9 and 26%.

That's confusing then. Certainly, things get complicated when you actually look at the science and don't try to oversimplify to the point of absurdity.
 
Most of the squawlling about global warming neglects the fact that water vapor is a much better greenhouse gas then CO2 is.
 
And there it is.

There is actually a pattern to these conversations. Quite fascinating.
 
Foriegndude,

Lawrence Solomon, the author of that article, works for the Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of the thinktank the Energy Probe Research Foundation. This Canadian lobby group can boast of the following in terms of its corporate sponsors:

Abitibi Price, Alberta Nat Gas Co Ltd, Amoco Canada, Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd, Canadian International Development Agency, Canadian Pacific, Carling O'Keefe, City of Toronto, Toronto Board of Education, Wintario, Employment and Immigration Canada, Consumers' Gas, Digital, Environment Canada, Gulf Canada, Lochiel Exploration, Nova, Shell Canada, Suncor, Superior Propane, Ultramar, and Union Gas

Amazingly enough, it is anti-nuclear and renewable forms of energy, and pro-natural gas. It is also skeptical when it comes to climate change, which is altogether less surprising.

http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0201.gz/msg00055.html
 
The French Generate about 90% of their electricity with Nuclear power.
They have more Nuclear reactors per capita than any other country in the world. They would love to sell their Nuclear reactors to us.

Nuclear is the only alternative to coal and oil that is practical for large scale power generation. But I'm sure they are just doing this out of their concern for the environment.:barf: ;)

So what are the French doing with all that lovely Nuclear waste anyway???

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france.pdf


MORE HERE:

France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia


By Julio Godoy*

France exports to Russia up to 6,000 tons of depleted uranium a year without adequate security measure, charges Greenpeace. The authorities say it is a "routine" matter.

PARIS - France sends thousands of tons of nuclear waste to Russia each year, but the details are shielded by a decree of "national security" in order to block debate on the issue, charged the environmental watchdog group Greenpeace.

"This kind of traffic of nuclear waste between Western Europe and Russia has gone on for more than three decades already, and allows the big nuclear energy companies, like Electricité de France, to store their radioactive waste at extremely contaminated sites in Siberia," Greenpeace-France spokesman Grégory Gendre told Tierramérica.

On Dec. 1, some 20 activists from the environmental group tried unsuccessfully to block a 450-ton shipment of depleted uranium from the port of Le Havre, 360 km northwest of Paris, on the Atlantic coast, to a radioactive material enrichment plant in Russia.

According to the study "La France nucléaire", published in 2002 by the World Information Service on Energy (WISE), each year the French nuclear station Eurodif, situated on the banks of the Rhone River, 700 km south of the French capital, produces 15,000 tons of depleted uranium.

Most of that waste is of no further use, and is simply stored at the nuclear plant. Today there are an estimated 200,000 tons of this nuclear material being warehoused there.

But 30 to 40 percent of Eurodif's depleted uranium -- 4,500 to 6,000 tons annually -- is sent to Russia, where it is subjected to the "enrichment" process to turn it back into fuel for nuclear power plants. Just one-tenth of that uranium returns to France, and the rest remains in Russia, stored in inadequate conditions, say the environmental activists.

Greenpeace also warns that the uranium shipments are made using conventional Russian transportation, without appropriate security measures, along a route that passes through major cities like St. Petersburg and Tomsk, and the coasts of Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

An accident or a terrorist attack could be devastating, says the group, which filed a complaint with a Moscow court against the state-run Russian company Tecksnabexport, which oversees the uranium imports.

The promoters of nuclear energy consider this source as an alternative for generating power in a cleaner way than is possible with fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas and coal), which are the main culprits behind climate change.

According to Charles Hufnagel, spokesman for Arevan, the French government agency that manages the production and treatment of nuclear fuels, the transport of depleted uranium to Russia is "a routine task."

"Depleted uranium has very low radioactivity, and its shipment does not pose safety problems," said Hufnagel.

But Stephan Lhomme, of the Sortir du Nucleaire (stop nuclear energy) federation, says that minimizing the health risks of radioactive waste only demonstrates the irresponsible attitudes of Areva and the French government.

"While it is true that depleted uranium is low in radioactivity, it constitutes a carcinogenic element, highly dangerous to human health," Lhomme told Tierramérica. "If that weren't the case, the world's armies wouldn't use it as material to manufacture lethal weapons."

Routine or not, Areva has obtained "national security" classification for the issue, making the transportation of nuclear waste a confidential matter, and has reportedly used government intelligence services to intimidate anti-nuclear activists.

Last week three Greenpeace activists were called in by the DST, the French secret service entrusted with domestic security, to be questioned in relation to a plutonium shipment made in February 2003.

On that occasion, the Greenpeace activists blocked a truck carrying 150 kg of plutonium. According to the organization, DST's intervention "proves that the French state and Areva want to stop any transparent debate on the environmental safety issues related to atomic energy."

An August 2003 government decree states that all nuclear matters are "confidential" and "national security" issues.

Measures like this do not mean that France -- like the rest of Europe that has utilized atomic energy in the past -- is off the hook for dealing with the problem of nuclear waste storage, including plutonium, which takes 24,000 years to lose just half of its radioactivity.

A 1990 law established that in 2006 at the latest, France has to identify a geological site appropriate for building a radioactive waste deposit. Despite hundreds of tests on numerous sites throughout the country, the National Assembly is expected in January to extend the search deadline to 2016.

Meanwhile, according to the national radioactive waste agency, there are more than a thousand sites in France being used for temporary nuclear waste storage, and some lack any type of protection. The volume of all types of radioactive waste in France grows by 1,200 tons a year.

Maybe they can figure out a way to make CHEESE OUT OF IT
 
Global Temps

Put me in the camp who believes that global warming and cooling are natural events that will occur with or without human influence. A look back into the Earth's history for 200 million years tend to support that.

That said...I also believe that man's influence can and very likely does change the timing of these natural events. As with anything else...everything means something. Dumping hydrocarbons and other pollutants into the atmosphere has to have SOME effect. Will it be enough to cause sudden or cataclysmic changes? I doubt it. It may advance the coming of another tropical age or ice age by a thousand years...maybe more, and maybe less...but on a cosmic time frame, a thousand years is a heartbeat.
 
Hmmmm......Global Warming, again ? ? ? ?


As I type this, the current temp here in Cleveland, OH is hovering around -2 degrees, (F).

So, to Al "I invented the Internet, and discovered Global Warming" Gore, and his super-duper-uber-leftist cohort Jaque-@zz Chiraq, I say poo-poo.
 
Last edited:
Remember "Acid Rain" when sulfur dioxide mixed with rain and viola a mass panic. 60 Minutes had on a piece years ago after
all the studies and a BILLION dollars conclusion Acid rain has little or no effect on the environment but the scientists wanted another BILLION just to make sure.
IMHO man has little if any effect on climate and yes I remember the coming "Ice Age" and running out of oil and air so polluted
That our bodies would have to adapt to be able to breath.
Mother Nature pumps out FAR more pollutants in the form of hydrogen sulfide ash and debris from volcanoes than we could imagine. Read the accounts of what happened after Krakatoa exploded IIRC temp dropped because of the debris in the air that stayed aloft for a year or more.
The bottom line is this follow the money trail and believe half of of what you are tolsd
 
Good link Dirkster - except SEPP, and Fred Singer, have been paid by Exxon in the past:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...sheet.php?id=1
I don't consider a Greenpeace website to be impartial. And so what if Singer got money from Exxon? That doesn't mean he's falsifying data, or its interpretation. And if he is, then we should suspect equally the motives and data & interpretation the pro-GW crowd is pushing. I'd like to know where these pro-GW researchers get their money from.
 
Wow....

Man, there are some serious believers on this board...and I don't mean about guns, either...

Present a dissenting viewpoint from the climate change orthodoxy, and next thing you know, all sorts of hell is breaking loose.

It appears that three major responses arise when someone applies critical thinking skills to the IPCC-led orthodoxy on climate change: (1) skeptics are stupid/ignorant; (2) skeptics are dangerous troglodytes, akin to "Holocaust Deniers", who should be muffled; and (3) skeptics are invariably funded by Big Oil.

Look, believe what you will, but many individuals (statisticians, geophysicists, climatologists, etc.) have expressed reservations about the climate change studies and associated findings. (See some of these troglodytes here -- http://www.pegnl.ca/dialogue/issues/2003/june_2003/article_18.htm)

Take, for example, the following point made by Balliunas, Patterson and McRae (2003):

"Despite the rhetoric of the Kyoto Protocol, CO2 is at most a minor contributor to global climate change. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied significantly over geologic time...CO2 is simply a minor driver in the many factors that influence climate....The percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere above the Antarctic Ice Cap for the last 150,000 years have been measured in air bubbles enclosed in ice cores. Over this interval, CO2 levels have closely paralleled temperatures. However, detailed analysis of CO2 concentrations indicates that CO22 levels often rose and peaked several hundred years after temperature. These results further emphasize that climate change drives major changes in CO2, not the reverse. Temperature change affects the carbon cycle, which then produces fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentration."

If true, this would suggest that climate change advocates have made the most fundamental statistical mistake possible, the one mistake that all statisticians are warned about on the first day of graduate school: "correlation is NOT causation". That possibility alone should give us pause, as responsible scientists, before advocating radical measures to address this issue.

Now, we move on to motivations. I pose one question for you: Should an argument be dismissed based on the motivations of the author, or should the argument be judged on its merits? Although it may shock some, climate change advocates are not noble, selfless stewards of scientific rigour, nor are climate change skeptics greedy zombies beholden to Halliburton et al. If the climate change "consensus" didn't have enough logical and statistical holes to drive a truck through, the issue would indeed be "settled" as a matter of fact and not as a matter of political assertion.

In science, consensus means nothing. It is possible for scientific consensus to exist, but for all scientists involved to be wrong. As an illustration, I refer you to a book entitled "The Ghost Map". It illustrates perfectly the pitfalls of "consensus" in scientific circles. To wit, in the mid-19th century, the scientific consensus was that Cholera was caused by foul air, or "miasma". When London experienced an outbreak of Cholera in 1854, one man (one!), Dr. John Snow, bucked the establishment and succeeded in showing a statistical link between the quality of water and cholera outbreaks. Had we ignored Dr. Snow and stuck to the "scientific consensus", we would still be spraying perfume on ourselves as a defense against Cholera -- all to no avail.
 
FWIW, roughly .03% of the Earth’s atmosphere is CO2, ostensibly the main culprit for anthropogenic climate change.
The fact that CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere relative to non GHG gasses is related here mainly to suggest that "heck, it's not that big of a deal how much CO2 there is." Too bad nothing could be further from the truth.

That is as you see it: the totality of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is approximately one-third of one-tenth of one percent. Of that, the biggest contribution comes from natural sources: oceans, volcanoes, etc. Our contribution, based on fossil fuel use, is somewhere between 10% and 14% (depending upon whom you read) of that .03%. Presuming the higher number, our CO2 contribution accounts for .0042% of the Earth's atmosphere.

Somebody was saying this nonsense on Uncle's page the other day, it's one of the more common denier BS tactics. Sorry to see you've fallen for it.

It's simply not true that volcanoes add more CO2 to the atmosphere than we do. Volcanoes add about 120mil tons yearly, we add about 20bil tons, or about 150 times as much CO2!!! If you think volcanoes contribute to planetary warming, it's kinda hard to argue that we don't.

Why the idea that roughly doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a mere two centuries could be problematic is so hard to accept is beyond me.

I'm no climatologist; my Ph.D. is in psychology, but I have a specialization in statistics. As such, I can tell you this: I have yet to meet a statistician who places trust in the IPCC models as being accurate.
Statisticians aren't physicists, meterologists, or climatologists. This ain't about counting significant digits and scrutinizing sample sizes.

The plain reality is the anti-GW have HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY to come up with a peer reviewable, documentable case that IPCC is wrong, they've had the oil industry tossing money at them for years. Nobody seems to be able to come up with a peer reviewable body of evidence that suggests that A) climatologists are wrong or that their conclusions aren't sound, and B) that AGW isn't real. Sure there are editorials here and there from Singer and Lindzen, but they're not convincing scientifically.

To the people who say that "hey, it's cold here today, so AGW isn't real", you're conflating climate and weather. They are NOT the same thing.

To the person who said "well not every scientist agrees", not every scientists agrees on evolution, gravity, general relativity, quark theory, dark matter, the age of the universe, the fate of the universe, etc.

Scientific consensus is not necessarily unanimity.

As for the "you'll lose your job if you don't agree" nonsense...please. Has Singer lost his job? Gray? Has Lindzen been run out of MIT on a rail? Hardly. All sorts of academic professional contrarians like that have kept their jobs. Academia likes keeping controversial figures around. Heck, the oil industry used to throw money at them too.

Look, even Exxon Mobile has given up on suggesting anthropogenic climate change isn't a reality.

Keep sticking your head in the sand if you like, but it doesn't help gun owners if we appear like a bunch of knuckle dragging anti-science (and yes, if you don't believe in AGW, you ARE anti-science for the most part) luddites.
 
DirksterG30 said:
And if he is, then we should suspect equally the motives and data & interpretation the pro-GW crowd is pushing.

Of course you should. You should see where their funding is coming from, you should question their findings and seek to understand the science behind it all. You should try to understand the role of CO2 in the atmosphere, the role of water vapour, the idea of temperature proxies and all the rest of it.

I don't say this as someone who is an expert, in fact I'll go so far as to say that my lack of expertise on this subject is awesome. I don't properly understand all those things, I am not in a position to rigorously question everything that I read. Difference here is that I admit that, I don't claim to understand everything properly and I don't go around throwing out scientific theories because they don't fit for me or throwing around phrases like 'I think that...' 'I believe that..' 'In my opinion...' because I have not the qualifications to back my 'feelings' up.

Now, it is my experience that those who deny any human role in global warming usually do so in the most strident tones (See the 'grow up' post earlier), without clear understanding of the science (greenhouse gases aren't called that because they make things grow) and usually with an uncritical acceptance of contrarian sources, which is why the same arguments crop up again and again from a very tiny handful of possibly relevant 'scientists' (some are, Milloy of junkscience is not). That's not to say that the reverse isn't true of course.

Anyone seen Tim Lambert lately?
 
In science, consensus means nothing

The other Anti-AGW tactic rears its ugly head: say things that are the opposite of the truth and see what sticks to the wall.

In point of fact, the only way we know anything from a "scientific" point of view is consensus.

A group of properly qualified people in a given field compare their work, criticize mistakes, find what's missing, scrutinize again and again, and come to an agreement about what the data means.

We know that evolution is a sound concept because a great majority of the qualified biologists in the field agree that it's what the data supports.

We know that general relativity is a sound concept because a great majority of the qualified physicists in the field agree that's what the data supports.

We know atomic theory is a sound concept because that's what a great majority of scientists in that field believe.

Climate science is no different--the people trained in the field have looked at the data, and a great majority of them have found the conclusion that we're warming the planet to be inescapable. The contrarian voices can feel free to speak, but their positions don't pass scrutiny. Heck, there hasn't even been a single peer reviewed position paper or body of study that contradicts the basic AGW position at all. If Lindzen, Gray, Singer, etc. had anything on the ball, they'd be able to make empirical observations and show the climatologists what they're missing.

Their inability to do so is telling.
 
Put me in the camp who believes that global warming and cooling are natural events that will occur with or without human influence. A look back into the Earth's history for 200 million years tend to support that.

This is of course true, but it's not really saying anything all that disputed by anyone. It's kinda like saying sometimes it rains, sometimes it doesn't.

The reality is that the planet does warm itself naturally, but over a long time and at a very gradual pace. The rapid warming we've observed in the last few decades is unprecedented in the last few hundred thousand years. It's not that the planet is warming or cooling--it's that it's doing so at such a rapid pace (and in perfect correlation to the explosion in fossil fuel use in the last couple centuries) that has scientists taking notice.

And for the last time folks, the "it's the sun causing it" thing has been debunked so many times, I'm sorry to see people are stilling trying that canard.

This subject is more than just a passing interest for me; it's not directly gun related, but gun owners are usually sensitive and sympathetic to conservation and outdoors issues, and I do really think taking the ostrich head in the sand, 99% of scientists agree that AGW is happening but I'll point to the 1% of contrarians who don't and pretend there's still some debate even when the oil industry has conceded that AGW is real position doesn't do us any good.
 
Read the Whole Thing

Helmetcase said:
"Somebody was saying this nonsense on Uncle's page the other day, it's one of the more common denier BS tactics. Sorry to see you've fallen for it. It's simply not true that volcanoes add more CO2 to the atmosphere than we do. Volcanoes add about 120mil tons yearly, we add about 20bil tons, or about 150 times as much CO2!!!"

Where did I say that volcanoes add more CO2 to the atmosphere than humans do? I didn't say that! Read my first post again: "Of that, the biggest contribution comes from natural sources: oceans, volcanoes, etc." The use of volcanoes was as one natural source of CO2 emissions; I was not limiting my point to volcanoes alone, nor was I making a statement about CO2 emissions solely from volcanoes versus CO2 emissions from human burning of fossil fuels.

"Statisticians aren't physicists, meterologists, or climatologists. This ain't about counting significant digits and scrutinizing sample sizes."

Sorry, pal, but you're wrong on this one. If you are going to base radical lifestyle changes on statistical models, then expect statisticians to weigh in on the debate. All the catastrophic scenarios you hear about on TV related to global warming (e.g., increase in sea levels, etc.) are predictions based on statistical models. I don't care what your specialization is -- if your statistical model is flawed because you failed to account for the necessary controls, assumptions, etc., required of all statistical tests, then any conclusion drawn from that model is ipso facto flawed. Talk to statisticians, and you'll get an earful about the bone-headed errors that experts-in-their-field make when they don't know enough about stats to tell the difference between a random-coefficient model and an ordinary least squares regression model.
 
Present a dissenting viewpoint from the climate change orthodoxy, and next thing you know, all sorts of hell is breaking loose.

Argue a point on incorrect data and you (on a board of this quality) will get called on it.

It appears that three major responses arise when someone applies critical thinking skills to the IPCC-led orthodoxy on climate change: (1) skeptics are stupid/ignorant; (2) skeptics are dangerous troglodytes, akin to "Holocaust Deniers", who should be muffled; and (3) skeptics are invariably funded by Big Oil.

(1): as above, if you are wrong then it should be pointed out to you;
(2): I dont think anyone here has said it;
(3): Of all the links that have been provided for climate skeptics, all of them have been funded by Big Oil. Surely thats of some relevance.

Now, we move on to motivations. I pose one question for you: Should an argument be dismissed based on the motivations of the author, or should the argument be judged on its merits? Although it may shock some, climate change advocates are not noble, selfless stewards of scientific rigour, nor are climate change skeptics greedy zombies beholden to Halliburton et al. If the climate change "consensus" didn't have enough logical and statistical holes to drive a truck through, the issue would indeed be "settled" as a matter of fact and not as a matter of political assertion.

As for motivation, having a lobby group being paid by a company directly involved in the issue making claims about that issue should be a factor considered when looking at the issue, especially if they do not publicly acknowledge that they have recieved such funding.

As for providing the science, I agree. As others have said, lets see climate skeptics come up with a peer-reviewed authorative study that proves their point, not one that rehashes junk science, flings mud around or avoids the issue. Lets not pretend that "enough logical and statistical holes to drive a truck through" though, until we can actually demonstrate it.
 
Where did I say that volcanoes add more CO2 to the atmosphere than humans do?
You said that volcanoes and oceans are the "biggest contributors" to CO2; this is patently false. CO2 levels fluctuate very slowly over eons and are fairly static in the pre-fossil fuel era compared to the rate they're growing at present; the reason that CO2 concentrations are so much higher in the last 150 years is quite simply a result of human activity. Even the AGW deniers like Lindzen and Gray don't dispute this.

If you are going to base radical lifestyle changes on statistical models,

Define statistical model. Define radical lifestyle change. I don't recall mentioning any lifestyle changes at all.

I don't care what your specialization is -- if your statistical model is flawed because you failed to account for the necessary controls, assumptions, etc., required of all statistical tests, then any conclusion drawn from that model is ipso facto flawed.

Assuming any of this is true, and that their models really are "statistical models", where's the evidence climatologists are making thess sorts of errors? Where are the statisticians lining up for AEI's $10K prize?

The plain reality is that they're making observations, like "gee the planet has warmed rapidly and at an unprecedented pace in the last 15-20 years" and "gee we're going to have doubled the CO2 concentration of the troposphere from 1900 by 2100". Show me the statistics errors there.

Talk to statisticians, and you'll get an earful about the bone-headed errors that experts-in-their-field make when they don't know enough about stats to tell the difference between a random-coefficient model and an ordinary least squares regression model.
I don't have a statistician in my hip pocket at the moment. Why don't you show us a link to a statistician who can show us why 99% of the climatologists in the world are wrong? I do know that the climatologists whose work I read about do pay a pretty good amount of attention to statistics, and have taken time to address the argument that their stats work isn't valid. Seems they do a pretty good job. I'm sure that there's a statistician somewhere who'll say they don't, but I haven't seen any evidence that IPCC is making a signficant stats error that is in any way exculpatory for the GW deniers.
 
And for the last time folks, the "it's the sun causing it" thing has been debunked so many times, I'm sorry to see people are stilling trying that canard.

Could you explain why fluctuations in the sun's output can't affect climate on the earth?

I'm not really qualified to judge most of the science or statistics, but I learned a long time ago to be very skeptical of anyone that tries to foist this type of change on the entire world. Especially when I see the attempts to silence opposition the way the warming camp does. I've noticed that most of the scientists speaking out against warming are seinor tenured types who are secure. Younger researchers are much less likely to speak out. There is a fair amount of anecdotical evidence that they are told shut up or your career is over. Warming supporters point to their silence as agreement. I have no evidence, but there is enough static getting out to make me suspicous. (see the Weather Channel flap)

One recurring theme from warming supporters is to follow the money. The same should be done for the supporters agenda. Although the goal of the UN etal is raw power, not just cash.

I haven't seen much evidence that folks around here are denying warming per se, just that we are the only, or even the primary cause. I think the truth will probably turn out to be a combination, but that doesn't advance any political agenda nearly as well as blaming humans, and by the way, give us total control of your life or YOUR'RE ALL GONNA DIE.
 
longrifleman said:
Could you explain why fluctuations in the sun's output can't affect climate on the earth?

Fluctuations in solar output can potentially affect the climate of the earth, I don't think anyone is denying that. What is being said is that there isn't any evidence to support the idea that this alone is the sole cause of recent warming.
 
Sure the sun can effect climate here. But scientists have looked at the sun's influence and found that it's not enough to account for climate trends we're seeing in the last couple hundred years. Spend about ten minutes on this subject on a climatologist site like realclimate.org and you'll see that this issue has been dealt with pretty extensively.

'm not really qualified to judge most of the science or statistics, but I learned a long time ago to be very skeptical of anyone that tries to foist this type of change on the entire world.

Skepticism is fine. But the contrarian scientists haven't been able to come up with a convincing counterpoint. Statistical wrangling aside, climatologists have been able to defend their work (see the link I provided above about stats and climatology) pretty well. And what change are you talking about? Moving away from fossil fuels?

Sure, be skeptical, but moving away from fossil fuels is largely a good thing. Cleaner air, we quit sending money to people that want to kill us, and we invest in advanced technology.

The only real sky is falling stuff I see is the stuff coming from people who emotionally argue that the GW argument means you have to give up your car and live in a cave. No scientist I've read about is arguing that.
 
There is a fair amount of anecdotical evidence that they are told shut up or your career is over. Warming supporters point to their silence as agreement. I have no evidence, but there is enough static getting out to make me suspicous. (see the Weather Channel flap)

I have no evidence

Sorry, it's all third hand errornet stuff, so I'm not claiming it as truth, just a red flag to make me keep looking at the sources. It is a typical circular argument type problem.

Spend about ten minutes on this subject on a climatologist site like realclimate.org and you'll see that this issue has been dealt with pretty extensively.

I have, (it's been a while) and I think they are a bit quick to claim accuracy that doesn't exist. Still waiting to be convinced.

Sure, be skeptical, but moving away from fossil fuels is largely a good thing

Agreed. As long as it is done freely by market forces, and not by fascist/communist diktat.

The only real sky is falling stuff I see is the stuff coming from people who emotionally argue that the GW argument means you have to give up your car and live in a cave. No scientist I've read about is arguing that.

Quess which group gets the politician's ear? That's what scares me, not that we may have to deal with effects of warming, but we will have to deal with the effects of communists using this as a Trojan Horse to advance their takeover of the world. What better excuse for The New World Order than do what we say or YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top